Narrative:

During our climb to cruise altitude from ksat we received a 'bleed duct' warning message; we complied with the QRH procedure; recalculated the fuel for the new cruise altitude and relayed the information to our dispatcher; we informed houston center of the problem and requested to stop climb at FL250 for our final altitude per the QRH. Kdtw weather was good VFR; however our dispatcher included some hold fuel and extra fuel which helped with the higher fuel burn rate at FL250. We were flying econ speed the whole way and monitoring our fuel; rsv fuel on the release was 2274; the mfd's frmng at destination indicated landing with 2830. When we entered the chicago center sector near fwa the controller assigned a speed of 300 kts; I told him the best I can give him was 280 kts; he asked 'why?' so I explained briefly our situation without congesting the frequency; he asked us if we were declaring minimum fuel to which I replied no. He insisted on 300 kts and again I tried to explain that I can give him 280 kts; at this point he gave us a phone number to contact after we land. We switched to the next chicago center controller frequency 119.85 he assigned us 300 kts again; I requested to maintain 280 kts to which he replied '300 kts or 360 degree turns'. We increased our speed to 300 kts; having flown through this sector regularly I knew I will be switching to cleveland center in less than 5 minutes. As soon as we switched to cleveland center we were assigned 280 kts; traffic was light in kdtw we were assigned a short approach and landed with 3000 lbs of fuel. After landing I spoke with the chicago center manager. I explained to him in detail our situation and expressed my concerns about the controller working 119.85; he stated that he had already briefed him about not handling the situation in a professional manner before I called. Bleed air problem that caused us to fly at a lower altitude and burn much more fuel than initially planned. A center controller that did not understand our fuel situation; and why we needed to fly slower to conserve fuel.we always try to accommodate ATC requests; speed adjustments or otherwise; however in this case conserving fuel to the extent possible was a safety priority. We closely monitored our fuel en-route and flew econ speed while assessing any changes to conserve fuel and stay as close to fuel schedule as possible. If we didn't monitor our fuel closely we would have needed to stop somewhere short of destination for fuel or burn into our reserve fuel; while it is not illegal to declare min fuel and continue to destination; it is safer and a better practice to monitor and conserve fuel to stay on planned fuel schedule.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reports of a fuel problem and the need to fly at a slower speed than normal. ZAU Controller tells pilot to increase speed; pilot does as requested.

Narrative: During our climb to cruise altitude from KSAT we received a 'Bleed Duct' warning message; we complied with the QRH procedure; recalculated the fuel for the new cruise altitude and relayed the information to our dispatcher; we informed Houston Center of the problem and requested to stop climb at FL250 for our final altitude per the QRH. KDTW weather was good VFR; however our dispatcher included some hold fuel and extra fuel which helped with the higher fuel burn rate at FL250. We were flying ECON SPEED the whole way and monitoring our fuel; RSV fuel on the release was 2274; the MFD's FRMNG at destination indicated landing with 2830. When we entered the Chicago Center Sector near FWA the controller assigned a speed of 300 kts; I told him the best I can give him was 280 kts; he asked 'Why?' so I explained briefly our situation without congesting the frequency; he asked us if we were declaring Minimum Fuel to which I replied no. He insisted on 300 kts and again I tried to explain that I can give him 280 kts; at this point he gave us a phone number to contact after we land. We switched to the next Chicago Center Controller Frequency 119.85 he assigned us 300 kts again; I requested to maintain 280 kts to which he replied '300 kts or 360 degree turns'. We increased our speed to 300 kts; having flown through this sector regularly I knew I will be switching to Cleveland Center in less than 5 minutes. As soon as we switched to Cleveland Center we were assigned 280 kts; traffic was light in KDTW we were assigned a short approach and landed with 3000 lbs of fuel. After landing I spoke with the Chicago Center Manager. I explained to him in detail our situation and expressed my concerns about the controller working 119.85; he stated that he had already briefed him about not handling the situation in a professional manner before I called. Bleed Air problem that caused us to fly at a lower altitude and burn much more fuel than initially planned. A center controller that did not understand our fuel situation; and why we needed to fly slower to conserve fuel.We always try to accommodate ATC requests; speed adjustments or otherwise; however in this case conserving fuel to the extent possible was a safety priority. We closely monitored our fuel en-route and flew ECON SPEED while assessing any changes to conserve fuel and stay as close to fuel schedule as possible. If we didn't monitor our fuel closely we would have needed to stop somewhere short of destination for fuel or burn into our reserve fuel; while it is not illegal to declare min fuel and continue to destination; it is safer and a better practice to monitor and conserve fuel to stay on planned fuel schedule.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.