Narrative:

Seemed to be confusion as to the necessity for heading and altitude changes to provide separation from swbound traffic at same altitude. Den center initially requested a 20 degree right turn, but seemed upset. Evidently, this was his second call to us, and the first call was blocked by other transmissions. Den center then requested another right turn of 50 degrees and an altitude change from FL310 to FL280. We queried the necessity of the large altitude and heading change. Controller was short with us and did not state the reason for the turn. We then asked the controller if and where the traffic was. He said 'traffic at 2 O'clock.' we visualed the traffic and asked if the wild maneuvering was necessary. Center became further agitated and demanded immediate compliance with his instructions. We informed center we had been complying. I also questioned the necessity as we had the traffic in sight and volunteered visual separation. Controller stated this was not good enough. Controller seemed unsure of new IFR rules for visual separation in IFR flight. He also lost his temper and never attempted to turn the other aircraft. He also never stated a traffic problem until asked. Vectoring for spacing into slc in this area is normal, so I would have appreciated a traffic alert and a more professional attitude. Supplemental information from acn 205412: the only unusual/different phase of flight was the attitude of the ATC controller. His tone of voice aggravated what he believed to be a potential conflict. Had he made his call in a normal tone of voice, this form would not have been written by our crew.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON ADHERENCE TO AN ATC INSTRUCTION CLRNC.

Narrative: SEEMED TO BE CONFUSION AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR HDG AND ALT CHANGES TO PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM SWBOUND TFC AT SAME ALT. DEN CTR INITIALLY REQUESTED A 20 DEG R TURN, BUT SEEMED UPSET. EVIDENTLY, THIS WAS HIS SECOND CALL TO US, AND THE FIRST CALL WAS BLOCKED BY OTHER TRANSMISSIONS. DEN CTR THEN REQUESTED ANOTHER R TURN OF 50 DEGS AND AN ALT CHANGE FROM FL310 TO FL280. WE QUERIED THE NECESSITY OF THE LARGE ALT AND HDG CHANGE. CTLR WAS SHORT WITH US AND DID NOT STATE THE REASON FOR THE TURN. WE THEN ASKED THE CTLR IF AND WHERE THE TFC WAS. HE SAID 'TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK.' WE VISUALED THE TFC AND ASKED IF THE WILD MANEUVERING WAS NECESSARY. CTR BECAME FURTHER AGITATED AND DEMANDED IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS. WE INFORMED CTR WE HAD BEEN COMPLYING. I ALSO QUESTIONED THE NECESSITY AS WE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT AND VOLUNTEERED VISUAL SEPARATION. CTLR STATED THIS WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. CTLR SEEMED UNSURE OF NEW IFR RULES FOR VISUAL SEPARATION IN IFR FLT. HE ALSO LOST HIS TEMPER AND NEVER ATTEMPTED TO TURN THE OTHER ACFT. HE ALSO NEVER STATED A TFC PROBLEM UNTIL ASKED. VECTORING FOR SPACING INTO SLC IN THIS AREA IS NORMAL, SO I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED A TFC ALERT AND A MORE PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 205412: THE ONLY UNUSUAL/DIFFERENT PHASE OF FLT WAS THE ATTITUDE OF THE ATC CTLR. HIS TONE OF VOICE AGGRAVATED WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT. HAD HE MADE HIS CALL IN A NORMAL TONE OF VOICE, THIS FORM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OUR CREW.

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.