Narrative:

The controller issued us an off-course vector for spacing, en route to ewr. Since the vector was to the northwest of our westerly heading (away from our destination) it seemed prudent to reduce our speed so as to reduce our fuel burn and distance off-course, while achieving the desired spacing requirement for ATC. The controller, however, insisted that we keep our speed 'up,' as he also had traffic behind us. (I don't know why he couldn't have reduced the speed of the traffic behind us, too?) so, we maintained a minimum speed 'agreed to' of 280 KTS. This brings up a 'gray area' that needs to be specifically addressed. Does the controller have the jurisdiction to issue clrncs overriding and negating operationally-oriented aircraft operating decisions made by the PIC? In this case, reducing speed is more understandable than being 'instructed' to increase speed, going the 'wrong' direction, at an inefficient altitude and burning additional (unnecessary) fuel to do it! When pilots wish to 'discuss' the operational ramifications of a controller's 'instruction' or 'request,' when will this (or is it now) be considered as 'refusing an instruction' or a clearance, and a violation be prosecuted? In effect, ATC has now reached up to the cockpit of a jetliner in the cruise phase, and has 'pushed up' the throttles with no input from the flight crew. I understand that ATC must adjust the aircraft's '3-D picture' in the ATC system. Speed reductions are commonplace, but 'instructing' a pilot to fly faster than he/she wants to operate the aircraft should not be tolerated! Other ATC separation techniques should be employed, then ATC controllers need to be made aware of the operational aspects which pilots must consider, e.g., higher fuel burn, turbulence, etc. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: discussed situation with reporter and counseled a more cooperative and less confrontational attitude. Reporter is cool and has given the matter much deep thought.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR OBJECTS TO BEING VECTORED OFF COURSE AT HIGH SPD FOR SPACING WHEN SLOWING DOWN AND CONSERVING FUEL WOULD AFFECT THE SAME RESULTS.

Narrative: THE CTLR ISSUED US AN OFF-COURSE VECTOR FOR SPACING, ENRTE TO EWR. SINCE THE VECTOR WAS TO THE NW OF OUR WESTERLY HDG (AWAY FROM OUR DEST) IT SEEMED PRUDENT TO REDUCE OUR SPD SO AS TO REDUCE OUR FUEL BURN AND DISTANCE OFF-COURSE, WHILE ACHIEVING THE DESIRED SPACING REQUIREMENT FOR ATC. THE CTLR, HOWEVER, INSISTED THAT WE KEEP OUR SPD 'UP,' AS HE ALSO HAD TFC BEHIND US. (I DON'T KNOW WHY HE COULDN'T HAVE REDUCED THE SPD OF THE TFC BEHIND US, TOO?) SO, WE MAINTAINED A MINIMUM SPD 'AGREED TO' OF 280 KTS. THIS BRINGS UP A 'GRAY AREA' THAT NEEDS TO BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED. DOES THE CTLR HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE CLRNCS OVERRIDING AND NEGATING OPERATIONALLY-ORIENTED ACFT OPERATING DECISIONS MADE BY THE PIC? IN THIS CASE, REDUCING SPD IS MORE UNDERSTANDABLE THAN BEING 'INSTRUCTED' TO INCREASE SPD, GOING THE 'WRONG' DIRECTION, AT AN INEFFICIENT ALT AND BURNING ADDITIONAL (UNNECESSARY) FUEL TO DO IT! WHEN PLTS WISH TO 'DISCUSS' THE OPERATIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF A CTLR'S 'INSTRUCTION' OR 'REQUEST,' WHEN WILL THIS (OR IS IT NOW) BE CONSIDERED AS 'REFUSING AN INSTRUCTION' OR A CLRNC, AND A VIOLATION BE PROSECUTED? IN EFFECT, ATC HAS NOW REACHED UP TO THE COCKPIT OF A JETLINER IN THE CRUISE PHASE, AND HAS 'PUSHED UP' THE THROTTLES WITH NO INPUT FROM THE FLC. I UNDERSTAND THAT ATC MUST ADJUST THE ACFT'S '3-D PICTURE' IN THE ATC SYS. SPD REDUCTIONS ARE COMMONPLACE, BUT 'INSTRUCTING' A PLT TO FLY FASTER THAN HE/SHE WANTS TO OPERATE THE ACFT SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED! OTHER ATC SEPARATION TECHNIQUES SHOULD BE EMPLOYED, THEN ATC CTLRS NEED TO BE MADE AWARE OF THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS WHICH PLTS MUST CONSIDER, E.G., HIGHER FUEL BURN, TURB, ETC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: DISCUSSED SIT WITH RPTR AND COUNSELED A MORE COOPERATIVE AND LESS CONFRONTATIONAL ATTITUDE. RPTR IS COOL AND HAS GIVEN THE MATTER MUCH DEEP THOUGHT.

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.