Narrative:

Air carrier X departed jfk destination orlando; takeoff and climb out were normal, leveling off at initial cruise altitude of FL310. Flight plan called for FL310 initially, then climb later to FL350. WX at orlando was cloudy, forecast chance of thunderstorms existed lying east to west across georgia and florida. Extensive rerouting was possible later in the flight because tops extended to FL450. While cruising at FL310 at mach .75 (280 KIAS) washington center controller ordered me to increase speed to 300-310 KIAS because of overtaking aircraft behind me (same direction). I advised I couldn't do that since we were in light to moderate chop and the turbulence penetration speed of my aircraft for structural and comfort is 280 KIAS. He insisted that I had to be moved because of traffic behind me, he then issued instructions to descend to FL280. I told him I didn't request FL280, and needed to remain at FL310. I was concerned that if I got stuck so early in the flight at 280 and not been able to climb higher later, I'd be forced to navigation through the thunderstorm area at a lower altitude than I'd like, and I could also be facing a low fuel state problem at destination or alternate. The controller seemed anxious to move me down against my wishes, but I'm sure he had no immediate problem because I was out in front of an aircraft that he had already slowed down to keep the proper spacing. I advised that I would be willing to take a short vector to allow others to pass, at which he turned me to heading of 090 degrees, a full 150 degrees to the left ( I was heading 230-240 degrees at the time). I protested that such a heading was quite different than what I would normally expect. Again, I was concerned that such a large deviation from course would cost precious fuel that I might need later. When he insisted that I comply, I turned left to 090 degrees. Mins later he gave me another left turn fully around to then go direct to norfolk!! Not what I had in mind! Doing 360's to let other aircraft pass is not my idea of fuel conservation, and in my opinion could have jeopardized the safety of my flight regarding fuel remaining at destination. I believe that this controller had created his own separation problem and them tried to solve it by moving me out of the way regardless of my operational necessities. The aircraft behind me had previously climbed to FL350 and, finding a very rough ride there got clearance to FL310. The controller slowed him to stay behind me, which he did without complaint. It appeared that the distance between us was becoming inadequate, thereby creating the controversy between the controller and me. The controller then reacted without regard to the problem he was creating for me.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC INSTRUCTIONS.

Narrative: ACR X DEPARTED JFK DEST ORLANDO; TKOF AND CLBOUT WERE NORMAL, LEVELING OFF AT INITIAL CRUISE ALT OF FL310. FLT PLAN CALLED FOR FL310 INITIALLY, THEN CLB LATER TO FL350. WX AT ORLANDO WAS CLOUDY, FORECAST CHANCE OF TSTMS EXISTED LYING E TO W ACROSS GEORGIA AND FLORIDA. EXTENSIVE REROUTING WAS POSSIBLE LATER IN THE FLT BECAUSE TOPS EXTENDED TO FL450. WHILE CRUISING AT FL310 AT MACH .75 (280 KIAS) WASHINGTON CTR CTLR ORDERED ME TO INCREASE SPD TO 300-310 KIAS BECAUSE OF OVERTAKING ACFT BEHIND ME (SAME DIRECTION). I ADVISED I COULDN'T DO THAT SINCE WE WERE IN LIGHT TO MODERATE CHOP AND THE TURB PENETRATION SPD OF MY ACFT FOR STRUCTURAL AND COMFORT IS 280 KIAS. HE INSISTED THAT I HAD TO BE MOVED BECAUSE OF TFC BEHIND ME, HE THEN ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO DSND TO FL280. I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T REQUEST FL280, AND NEEDED TO REMAIN AT FL310. I WAS CONCERNED THAT IF I GOT STUCK SO EARLY IN THE FLT AT 280 AND NOT BEEN ABLE TO CLB HIGHER LATER, I'D BE FORCED TO NAV THROUGH THE TSTM AREA AT A LOWER ALT THAN I'D LIKE, AND I COULD ALSO BE FACING A LOW FUEL STATE PROBLEM AT DEST OR ALTERNATE. THE CTLR SEEMED ANXIOUS TO MOVE ME DOWN AGAINST MY WISHES, BUT I'M SURE HE HAD NO IMMEDIATE PROBLEM BECAUSE I WAS OUT IN FRONT OF AN ACFT THAT HE HAD ALREADY SLOWED DOWN TO KEEP THE PROPER SPACING. I ADVISED THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE A SHORT VECTOR TO ALLOW OTHERS TO PASS, AT WHICH HE TURNED ME TO HDG OF 090 DEGS, A FULL 150 DEGS TO THE L ( I WAS HDG 230-240 DEGS AT THE TIME). I PROTESTED THAT SUCH A HDG WAS QUITE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT. AGAIN, I WAS CONCERNED THAT SUCH A LARGE DEV FROM COURSE WOULD COST PRECIOUS FUEL THAT I MIGHT NEED LATER. WHEN HE INSISTED THAT I COMPLY, I TURNED L TO 090 DEGS. MINS LATER HE GAVE ME ANOTHER L TURN FULLY AROUND TO THEN GO DIRECT TO NORFOLK!! NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND! DOING 360'S TO LET OTHER ACFT PASS IS NOT MY IDEA OF FUEL CONSERVATION, AND IN MY OPINION COULD HAVE JEOPARDIZED THE SAFETY OF MY FLT REGARDING FUEL REMAINING AT DEST. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CTLR HAD CREATED HIS OWN SEPARATION PROBLEM AND THEM TRIED TO SOLVE IT BY MOVING ME OUT OF THE WAY REGARDLESS OF MY OPERATIONAL NECESSITIES. THE ACFT BEHIND ME HAD PREVIOUSLY CLBED TO FL350 AND, FINDING A VERY ROUGH RIDE THERE GOT CLRNC TO FL310. THE CTLR SLOWED HIM TO STAY BEHIND ME, WHICH HE DID WITHOUT COMPLAINT. IT APPEARED THAT THE DISTANCE BTWN US WAS BECOMING INADEQUATE, THEREBY CREATING THE CONTROVERSY BTWN THE CTLR AND ME. THE CTLR THEN REACTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROBLEM HE WAS CREATING FOR ME.

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.