Narrative:

On a flight from cgf-pbi, I flew 2/3 of trip at fl 370. It became uncomfortably turbulent, when I asked for fl 390. Not long after I was level at FL390, ATC issued me a clearance to descend to FL280. At this time I was still 250 mi from destination. As the PIC I had several reasons why I didn't wish to descend. I instructed my co-captain to negotiate with ATC to remain at FL390 if there is no conflicting traffic. ATC advised us of their policy (requiring descent to FL280) at which time I told my co-captain to explain that we understand policy but we have good reasons for our request to remain at FL390 for a while, please coordination ahead. The controller became indignant and informed us they wouldn't talk to the next sector, he didn't have time. At this time he instructed us to contact the next controller. My co-captain suggested then we negotiate with the new sector controller. ('How about we stay at FL390 and negotiate with the next controller?'). At this point the controller is mad, and authoritatively states if we're not declaring an emergency turn left to 090 degree descend to FL280 we have a pilot deviation here! At which time I did comply. Never once did the controller indicate any conflicting traffic, nor use the term immediate. It was obvious the controller didn't know my reasons for requesting to stay at FL390 nor did he even care! To prevent recurrence: 1. Change general attitude of controller's to realize ATC exists because of the users. They provide a service to assist and accommodate the user not the ATC system, and are not there for the purpose of law enforcement. 2. ATC must become educated and knowledgeable of the uniqueness of individual aircraft operations. 3. ATC should be encouraged and expected to exceed minimum requirements of ability.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CGA HAS DIFFICULTY CONVINCING CTLR THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO DESCEND DUE TO TURBULENCE CONDITIONS.

Narrative: ON A FLT FROM CGF-PBI, I FLEW 2/3 OF TRIP AT FL 370. IT BECAME UNCOMFORTABLY TURBULENT, WHEN I ASKED FOR FL 390. NOT LONG AFTER I WAS LEVEL AT FL390, ATC ISSUED ME A CLRNC TO DSND TO FL280. AT THIS TIME I WAS STILL 250 MI FROM DEST. AS THE PIC I HAD SEVERAL REASONS WHY I DIDN'T WISH TO DSND. I INSTRUCTED MY CO-CAPT TO NEGOTIATE WITH ATC TO REMAIN AT FL390 IF THERE IS NO CONFLICTING TFC. ATC ADVISED US OF THEIR POLICY (REQUIRING DSCNT TO FL280) AT WHICH TIME I TOLD MY CO-CAPT TO EXPLAIN THAT WE UNDERSTAND POLICY BUT WE HAVE GOOD REASONS FOR OUR REQUEST TO REMAIN AT FL390 FOR A WHILE, PLEASE COORD AHEAD. THE CTLR BECAME INDIGNANT AND INFORMED US THEY WOULDN'T TALK TO THE NEXT SECTOR, HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME. AT THIS TIME HE INSTRUCTED US TO CONTACT THE NEXT CTLR. MY CO-CAPT SUGGESTED THEN WE NEGOTIATE WITH THE NEW SECTOR CTLR. ('HOW ABOUT WE STAY AT FL390 AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE NEXT CTLR?'). AT THIS POINT THE CTLR IS MAD, AND AUTHORITATIVELY STATES IF WE'RE NOT DECLARING AN EMER TURN L TO 090 DEG DSND TO FL280 WE HAVE A PLT DEVIATION HERE! AT WHICH TIME I DID COMPLY. NEVER ONCE DID THE CTLR INDICATE ANY CONFLICTING TFC, NOR USE THE TERM IMMEDIATE. IT WAS OBVIOUS THE CTLR DIDN'T KNOW MY REASONS FOR REQUESTING TO STAY AT FL390 NOR DID HE EVEN CARE! TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: 1. CHANGE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF CTLR'S TO REALIZE ATC EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE USERS. THEY PROVIDE A SVC TO ASSIST AND ACCOMMODATE THE USER NOT THE ATC SYS, AND ARE NOT THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. 2. ATC MUST BECOME EDUCATED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF INDIVIDUAL ACFT OPS. 3. ATC SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED AND EXPECTED TO EXCEED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ABILITY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.