Narrative:

Light transport X at FL330 was given clearance to FL290 to clear air carrier Y FL310 approximately 60-70 mi apart. Light transport X did not descend at the rate described in the FARS. Light transport X was then issued an expeditious descent clearance. Pilot still did not comply. Clearance to turn was issued and was ignored and pilot continued to argue. Supplemental information from acn 233069: during a flight between mia and phl, ZJX told us to descend to FL370. I replied that I would like to stay at FL410 as long as possible as we were 350 mi out of phl, and that, if I came out of FL410, I would like to stay at FL370 80 mi from phl. ZJX said he would relay the message but that I would have to descend to FL370 now. When in washington's airspace, I was told to descend to FL330. I requested discretion. Washington denied the request. Shortly thereafter, washington further descended us to FL290. Once again, I reiterated the enormous fuel burn at low altitudes, to no avail. Through FL330 to FL290 I was told to make a left turn to 360. A few seconds later, another controller said turn even further to 340 expedite through FL290 and descend to FL240. I reported out of FL290. Washington after a min gave me a phone number of quality assurance control to call when on the ground, due to the lack of separation. Realizing that if there were any delays going into phl I wouldn't have the required fuel, so I opted to deviate to acy. In retrospect, I do not feel that the controllers were keeping up sufficiently with the aircraft involved. The controller realized the traffic conflict too late and hence overloaded, making a bad situation worse. It is my understanding that one of the controllers was a trainee, and that is why she was relieved. In talking with the quality assurance control person, they said that I was not descending or turning at a rate that was acceptable to them. However, nowhere in the FARS does it specify rates, nor for that matter of fact did the controllers. It's my opinion that if turbojet aircraft are going to be brought out of the higher flight levels 350 mi from destination, pilots should be forewarned prior to departure, to avoid these sits in the future. At no time did we not comply with the controllers. Flight planning for fuel is predicated on flying in the high flight levels. An light transport jet burns the same amount of fuel at idle on the ground as it does at FL410.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC INSTRUCTIONS SLOW DSCNT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RADAR VECTOR HAD LTSS FROM ACR Y. PLTDEV.

Narrative: LTT X AT FL330 WAS GIVEN CLRNC TO FL290 TO CLR ACR Y FL310 APPROX 60-70 MI APART. LTT X DID NOT DSND AT THE RATE DESCRIBED IN THE FARS. LTT X WAS THEN ISSUED AN EXPEDITIOUS DSCNT CLRNC. PLT STILL DID NOT COMPLY. CLRNC TO TURN WAS ISSUED AND WAS IGNORED AND PLT CONTINUED TO ARGUE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 233069: DURING A FLT BTWN MIA AND PHL, ZJX TOLD US TO DSND TO FL370. I REPLIED THAT I WOULD LIKE TO STAY AT FL410 AS LONG AS POSSIBLE AS WE WERE 350 MI OUT OF PHL, AND THAT, IF I CAME OUT OF FL410, I WOULD LIKE TO STAY AT FL370 80 MI FROM PHL. ZJX SAID HE WOULD RELAY THE MESSAGE BUT THAT I WOULD HAVE TO DSND TO FL370 NOW. WHEN IN WASHINGTON'S AIRSPACE, I WAS TOLD TO DSND TO FL330. I REQUESTED DISCRETION. WASHINGTON DENIED THE REQUEST. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WASHINGTON FURTHER DSNDED US TO FL290. ONCE AGAIN, I REITERATED THE ENORMOUS FUEL BURN AT LOW ALTS, TO NO AVAIL. THROUGH FL330 TO FL290 I WAS TOLD TO MAKE A L TURN TO 360. A FEW SECONDS LATER, ANOTHER CTLR SAID TURN EVEN FURTHER TO 340 EXPEDITE THROUGH FL290 AND DSND TO FL240. I RPTED OUT OF FL290. WASHINGTON AFTER A MIN GAVE ME A PHONE NUMBER OF QUALITY ASSURANCE CTL TO CALL WHEN ON THE GND, DUE TO THE LACK OF SEPARATION. REALIZING THAT IF THERE WERE ANY DELAYS GOING INTO PHL I WOULDN'T HAVE THE REQUIRED FUEL, SO I OPTED TO DEVIATE TO ACY. IN RETROSPECT, I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE CTLRS WERE KEEPING UP SUFFICIENTLY WITH THE ACFT INVOLVED. THE CTLR REALIZED THE TFC CONFLICT TOO LATE AND HENCE OVERLOADED, MAKING A BAD SIT WORSE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE OF THE CTLRS WAS A TRAINEE, AND THAT IS WHY SHE WAS RELIEVED. IN TALKING WITH THE QUALITY ASSURANCE CTL PERSON, THEY SAID THAT I WAS NOT DSNDING OR TURNING AT A RATE THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. HOWEVER, NOWHERE IN THE FARS DOES IT SPECIFY RATES, NOR FOR THAT MATTER OF FACT DID THE CTLRS. IT'S MY OPINION THAT IF TURBOJET ACFT ARE GOING TO BE BROUGHT OUT OF THE HIGHER FLT LEVELS 350 MI FROM DEST, PLTS SHOULD BE FOREWARNED PRIOR TO DEP, TO AVOID THESE SITS IN THE FUTURE. AT NO TIME DID WE NOT COMPLY WITH THE CTLRS. FLT PLANNING FOR FUEL IS PREDICATED ON FLYING IN THE HIGH FLT LEVELS. AN LTT JET BURNS THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUEL AT IDLE ON THE GND AS IT DOES AT FL410.

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.