Narrative:

We were on a photo mission to page county, va, for the purpose of studying road placement over a number of yrs and future needs for the highway department. Doing this requires a scale of 1'=2000'. With temperature and pressure correction the altitude needed for scale was 13000'. We asked for and got an IFR clearance to operate at 13000'. When you start running a photo line you must adhere to a very narrow track or the coverage will not be correct! If you get off line you must start the whole line over and with 15 and 20 mi long lines you try not to do this! The point in telling this is we were half way down one of the lines when center gave us a turn to a heading for traffic. Maybe a poor choice of words but I replied, 'we really can't do that right now,' for the reasons mentioned above! Hearing no reply from the controller I said, 'do you still want us to turn to 270?' the next transmission I heard was the controller telling an air carrier jet to level off at 14000' and look for traffic at 13000' southbound! No identify numbers were used, but by listening to the chain of events I reckoned that we must be his traffic. No conflict arose and no mention was made by the controller about it except he no longer had a friendly attitude! We would have turned to the heading when we asked the second time if he had said to do so! There was no intent not to comply with his instructions, only to see if something else could be done! I must admit that I could have spoken up or used a different choice of words to convey that intent, but since he (the controller) made alternate plans to avoid a sep conflict and did not question us about our actions or statement, I was concerned, but did not inquire further because everyone seemed busy! The point to this narrative is the nagging question of whether our actions constituted a 'failure to comply with ATC instructions!' this was surely not our intent and liken this to being given a crossing altitude restriction and telling the controller that due to whatever reason one could not comply with those instructions as given! We would have done what he said if he replied to us again to make the turn or if he had not made alternate plans! This question could have been avoided if there was better communication between both of us (pilot/controller) as to each other's constraints and intentions! As is, I do not see this situation as a failure to comply, rather as a case of poor communication on my part and 2 people trying to do their respective jobs. I would be surprised to hear from the FAA on this matter.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT ON PHOTO MISSION REFUSED A TURN FOR TRAFFIC SEPARATION REQUIRING THE CTLR TO USE ALTERNATE PLAN TO KEEP ACFT SEPARATED.

Narrative: WE WERE ON A PHOTO MISSION TO PAGE COUNTY, VA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING ROAD PLACEMENT OVER A NUMBER OF YRS AND FUTURE NEEDS FOR THE HWY DEPT. DOING THIS REQUIRES A SCALE OF 1'=2000'. WITH TEMP AND PRESSURE CORRECTION THE ALT NEEDED FOR SCALE WAS 13000'. WE ASKED FOR AND GOT AN IFR CLRNC TO OPERATE AT 13000'. WHEN YOU START RUNNING A PHOTO LINE YOU MUST ADHERE TO A VERY NARROW TRACK OR THE COVERAGE WILL NOT BE CORRECT! IF YOU GET OFF LINE YOU MUST START THE WHOLE LINE OVER AND WITH 15 AND 20 MI LONG LINES YOU TRY NOT TO DO THIS! THE POINT IN TELLING THIS IS WE WERE HALF WAY DOWN ONE OF THE LINES WHEN CENTER GAVE US A TURN TO A HDG FOR TFC. MAYBE A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS BUT I REPLIED, 'WE REALLY CAN'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW,' FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE! HEARING NO REPLY FROM THE CTLR I SAID, 'DO YOU STILL WANT US TO TURN TO 270?' THE NEXT XMISSION I HEARD WAS THE CTLR TELLING AN ACR JET TO LEVEL OFF AT 14000' AND LOOK FOR TFC AT 13000' SBND! NO IDENT NUMBERS WERE USED, BUT BY LISTENING TO THE CHAIN OF EVENTS I RECKONED THAT WE MUST BE HIS TFC. NO CONFLICT AROSE AND NO MENTION WAS MADE BY THE CTLR ABOUT IT EXCEPT HE NO LONGER HAD A FRIENDLY ATTITUDE! WE WOULD HAVE TURNED TO THE HDG WHEN WE ASKED THE SECOND TIME IF HE HAD SAID TO DO SO! THERE WAS NO INTENT NOT TO COMPLY WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS, ONLY TO SEE IF SOMETHING ELSE COULD BE DONE! I MUST ADMIT THAT I COULD HAVE SPOKEN UP OR USED A DIFFERENT CHOICE OF WORDS TO CONVEY THAT INTENT, BUT SINCE HE (THE CTLR) MADE ALTERNATE PLANS TO AVOID A SEP CONFLICT AND DID NOT QUESTION US ABOUT OUR ACTIONS OR STATEMENT, I WAS CONCERNED, BUT DID NOT INQUIRE FURTHER BECAUSE EVERYONE SEEMED BUSY! THE POINT TO THIS NARRATIVE IS THE NAGGING QUESTION OF WHETHER OUR ACTIONS CONSTITUTED A 'FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ATC INSTRUCTIONS!' THIS WAS SURELY NOT OUR INTENT AND LIKEN THIS TO BEING GIVEN A XING ALT RESTRICTION AND TELLING THE CTLR THAT DUE TO WHATEVER REASON ONE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THOSE INSTRUCTIONS AS GIVEN! WE WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT HE SAID IF HE REPLIED TO US AGAIN TO MAKE THE TURN OR IF HE HAD NOT MADE ALTERNATE PLANS! THIS QUESTION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THERE WAS BETTER COM BTWN BOTH OF US (PLT/CTLR) AS TO EACH OTHER'S CONSTRAINTS AND INTENTIONS! AS IS, I DO NOT SEE THIS SITUATION AS A FAILURE TO COMPLY, RATHER AS A CASE OF POOR COM ON MY PART AND 2 PEOPLE TRYING TO DO THEIR RESPECTIVE JOBS. I WOULD BE SURPRISED TO HEAR FROM THE FAA ON THIS MATTER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.