Narrative:

On a flight from mia to phl while at FL410 we were told to descend and maintain FL370. My captain, who was operating the radios from the right seat at the time, replied that we would like to stay at FL410 for as long as possible since we were 330 NM from our destination. ZJX replied that we would have to descend to FL370 at this time and that they would relay our request to stay at FL370 for as long as possible. We did not hurry our descent, but kept a 500 FPM descent rate. Approximately 260 NM from phl, ZDC told us to descend to FL330. We restated our request to stay at FL370 for as long as possible for fuel burn considerations. We were denied our request and told to descend to FL330. Shortly thereafter, ZDC told us to descend to FL290. We requested pilot's discretion and informed ZDC that we would not make it to our destination if we descended any further at this time. We were again denied, so we kept our 500 FPM rate of descent. Shortly after passing norfolk VOR, navigating to sea isle VOR, ZDC told us to descend further to FL240 and expedite through FL290, and turn to heading 360 degrees. We were currently descending through FL310. We increased our rate of descent to between 1500 and 2000 FPM until passing through FL290, at which point we reported 'out of 290' to center. We then reestablished our 500 FPM descent rate. At this point a different controller told us to continue our turn to heading 340 degrees. As we were already in a turn, we increased our rate of turn. Neither I nor my captain heard the word 'immediate' or 'expedite' during the transmission. Before reaching 340 degree heading, we were told to call ZDC when on the ground because of insufficient separation conflict. At no point did we not comply with ATC's clrncs. I have never in my career of flying light transport been taken out of the higher flight levels this far from destination airport. Needless to say, we do not plan on the kind of fuel burn we experience at the lower flight levels. If we did, an X series light transport would not be very efficient. Under normal circumstances, ATC leaves us at FL390 or FL410 until we are 100-150 NM from our destination. The trip from mia to phl was planned for 2.5 hours with 1250 pounds of fuel in reserve. Instead, we had to land in acy, short of our destination, after 3 hours of flight with minimum fuel. Why? Because we were brought into lower altitudes 200 NM sooner than anticipated which resulted in higher fuel burn. To reduce or minimize the increased fuel burn, we reduced the power setting and thereby slowed down. It seemed that the ATC controller was not familiar with an X series light transport fuel burn at lower altitudes and was 'bugged' by us trying to make it to our destination with requests about staying in the higher flight levels. I think this could have been avoided if ATC was more familiar with different aircraft types and associated fuel burns. The problem ATC had with us is that we did not descend or turn fast enough for them.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LTT JET WAS FORCED BY ARTCC TO FLY AT A LOWER THAN OPTIMUM ALT AND THEN LAND SHORT OF ITS DEST BECAUSE OF LOW FUEL.

Narrative: ON A FLT FROM MIA TO PHL WHILE AT FL410 WE WERE TOLD TO DSND AND MAINTAIN FL370. MY CAPT, WHO WAS OPERATING THE RADIOS FROM THE R SEAT AT THE TIME, REPLIED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO STAY AT FL410 FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE SINCE WE WERE 330 NM FROM OUR DEST. ZJX REPLIED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DSND TO FL370 AT THIS TIME AND THAT THEY WOULD RELAY OUR REQUEST TO STAY AT FL370 FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. WE DID NOT HURRY OUR DSCNT, BUT KEPT A 500 FPM DSCNT RATE. APPROX 260 NM FROM PHL, ZDC TOLD US TO DSND TO FL330. WE RESTATED OUR REQUEST TO STAY AT FL370 FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE FOR FUEL BURN CONSIDERATIONS. WE WERE DENIED OUR REQUEST AND TOLD TO DSND TO FL330. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, ZDC TOLD US TO DSND TO FL290. WE REQUESTED PLT'S DISCRETION AND INFORMED ZDC THAT WE WOULD NOT MAKE IT TO OUR DEST IF WE DSNDED ANY FURTHER AT THIS TIME. WE WERE AGAIN DENIED, SO WE KEPT OUR 500 FPM RATE OF DSCNT. SHORTLY AFTER PASSING NORFOLK VOR, NAVING TO SEA ISLE VOR, ZDC TOLD US TO DSND FURTHER TO FL240 AND EXPEDITE THROUGH FL290, AND TURN TO HDG 360 DEGS. WE WERE CURRENTLY DSNDING THROUGH FL310. WE INCREASED OUR RATE OF DSCNT TO BTWN 1500 AND 2000 FPM UNTIL PASSING THROUGH FL290, AT WHICH POINT WE RPTED 'OUT OF 290' TO CTR. WE THEN REESTABLISHED OUR 500 FPM DSCNT RATE. AT THIS POINT A DIFFERENT CTLR TOLD US TO CONTINUE OUR TURN TO HDG 340 DEGS. AS WE WERE ALREADY IN A TURN, WE INCREASED OUR RATE OF TURN. NEITHER I NOR MY CAPT HEARD THE WORD 'IMMEDIATE' OR 'EXPEDITE' DURING THE XMISSION. BEFORE REACHING 340 DEG HDG, WE WERE TOLD TO CALL ZDC WHEN ON THE GND BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT SEPARATION CONFLICT. AT NO POINT DID WE NOT COMPLY WITH ATC'S CLRNCS. I HAVE NEVER IN MY CAREER OF FLYING LTT BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE HIGHER FLT LEVELS THIS FAR FROM DEST ARPT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE DO NOT PLAN ON THE KIND OF FUEL BURN WE EXPERIENCE AT THE LOWER FLT LEVELS. IF WE DID, AN X SERIES LTT WOULD NOT BE VERY EFFICIENT. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, ATC LEAVES US AT FL390 OR FL410 UNTIL WE ARE 100-150 NM FROM OUR DEST. THE TRIP FROM MIA TO PHL WAS PLANNED FOR 2.5 HRS WITH 1250 LBS OF FUEL IN RESERVE. INSTEAD, WE HAD TO LAND IN ACY, SHORT OF OUR DEST, AFTER 3 HRS OF FLT WITH MINIMUM FUEL. WHY? BECAUSE WE WERE BROUGHT INTO LOWER ALTS 200 NM SOONER THAN ANTICIPATED WHICH RESULTED IN HIGHER FUEL BURN. TO REDUCE OR MINIMIZE THE INCREASED FUEL BURN, WE REDUCED THE PWR SETTING AND THEREBY SLOWED DOWN. IT SEEMED THAT THE ATC CTLR WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH AN X SERIES LTT FUEL BURN AT LOWER ALTS AND WAS 'BUGGED' BY US TRYING TO MAKE IT TO OUR DEST WITH REQUESTS ABOUT STAYING IN THE HIGHER FLT LEVELS. I THINK THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF ATC WAS MORE FAMILIAR WITH DIFFERENT ACFT TYPES AND ASSOCIATED FUEL BURNS. THE PROB ATC HAD WITH US IS THAT WE DID NOT DSND OR TURN FAST ENOUGH FOR THEM.

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.