Narrative:

We were filed route 'D 50,' dfw-WORTH5-boomr-zun-crowe-las, and were issued this clearance by dfw clearance delivery. This route had an en route alternate decision point, drift-down at N35141 W110198, zun plus 60 NM. 30-40 mi west of zun, which was 20-30 mi short of our decision point, the ZAB controller issued clearance direct to pgs. I explained this would affect our drift-down calculations and asked to remain on our original flight plan. The controller said he had never heard of this before and said ZLA required us to go direct to pgs. I reiterated my point about drift-down. He called back shortly and stated ZLA had approved our original route but that we needed to get prior clearance for such a route in the future and that a remark needed to be in the flight plan about drift-down problems. I replied that I thought receiving this clearance from ATC at dfw was our prior clearance and that he needed to talk to dispatch about any remarks on the flight plan. The ZLA controller we were handed off to said there was no problem with our original route and to give ZAB a call on landing. I did this and was confronted by an ARTCC supervisor about refusing his controllers instructions. I explained that I did not refuse the instructions. I also explained drift-down problems, the short time from the reroute to our decision point, how this time constraint did not allow us enough time to contact dispatch or check the drift-down chart properly, and how accepting the reroute without checking its suitability for drift-down was both unsafe and illegal. He replied that he had never heard of anyone concerned about drift-down before, that he had never heard of anyone using our original route, that his controllers were too busy to deal with my problems of drift-down, and that he had a LOA with ZLA to funnel everyone over pgs. He further stated that he was considering violating me for refusing a controller's instructions. I reiterated my responsibility first and foremost was the safety of my crew, passenger, and aircraft, and that accepting a reroute that could jeopardize any of these was unsafe and illegal. I cannot accept a clearance in mountainous terrain, ie, western united states, until the drift-down capability has been checked. He said he would pull the tapes and let me know about his decision to violate me. In my opinion, this is a typical bureaucratic approach to this problem. I guess I stepped on his empire and will be slapped down for it. I strongly believe that I do not deserve a violation but what I do deserve is a written apology from the supervisor for his total disregard of my responsibility of captain. His only concern seems to be the operation of his empire.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MD80 DID NOT ACCEPT A REROUTE CLRNC BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO CHK THEIR SINGLE ENG DRIFT-DOWN PERFORMANCE TABLES. DESIGNATED MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN.

Narrative: WE WERE FILED RTE 'D 50,' DFW-WORTH5-BOOMR-ZUN-CROWE-LAS, AND WERE ISSUED THIS CLRNC BY DFW CLRNC DELIVERY. THIS RTE HAD AN ENRTE ALTERNATE DECISION POINT, DRIFT-DOWN AT N35141 W110198, ZUN PLUS 60 NM. 30-40 MI W OF ZUN, WHICH WAS 20-30 MI SHORT OF OUR DECISION POINT, THE ZAB CTLR ISSUED CLRNC DIRECT TO PGS. I EXPLAINED THIS WOULD AFFECT OUR DRIFT-DOWN CALCULATIONS AND ASKED TO REMAIN ON OUR ORIGINAL FLT PLAN. THE CTLR SAID HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF THIS BEFORE AND SAID ZLA REQUIRED US TO GO DIRECT TO PGS. I REITERATED MY POINT ABOUT DRIFT-DOWN. HE CALLED BACK SHORTLY AND STATED ZLA HAD APPROVED OUR ORIGINAL RTE BUT THAT WE NEEDED TO GET PRIOR CLRNC FOR SUCH A RTE IN THE FUTURE AND THAT A REMARK NEEDED TO BE IN THE FLT PLAN ABOUT DRIFT-DOWN PROBS. I REPLIED THAT I THOUGHT RECEIVING THIS CLRNC FROM ATC AT DFW WAS OUR PRIOR CLRNC AND THAT HE NEEDED TO TALK TO DISPATCH ABOUT ANY REMARKS ON THE FLT PLAN. THE ZLA CTLR WE WERE HANDED OFF TO SAID THERE WAS NO PROB WITH OUR ORIGINAL RTE AND TO GIVE ZAB A CALL ON LNDG. I DID THIS AND WAS CONFRONTED BY AN ARTCC SUPVR ABOUT REFUSING HIS CTLRS INSTRUCTIONS. I EXPLAINED THAT I DID NOT REFUSE THE INSTRUCTIONS. I ALSO EXPLAINED DRIFT-DOWN PROBS, THE SHORT TIME FROM THE REROUTE TO OUR DECISION POINT, HOW THIS TIME CONSTRAINT DID NOT ALLOW US ENOUGH TIME TO CONTACT DISPATCH OR CHK THE DRIFT-DOWN CHART PROPERLY, AND HOW ACCEPTING THE REROUTE WITHOUT CHKING ITS SUITABILITY FOR DRIFT-DOWN WAS BOTH UNSAFE AND ILLEGAL. HE REPLIED THAT HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE CONCERNED ABOUT DRIFT-DOWN BEFORE, THAT HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE USING OUR ORIGINAL RTE, THAT HIS CTLRS WERE TOO BUSY TO DEAL WITH MY PROBS OF DRIFT-DOWN, AND THAT HE HAD A LOA WITH ZLA TO FUNNEL EVERYONE OVER PGS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS CONSIDERING VIOLATING ME FOR REFUSING A CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS. I REITERATED MY RESPONSIBILITY FIRST AND FOREMOST WAS THE SAFETY OF MY CREW, PAX, AND ACFT, AND THAT ACCEPTING A REROUTE THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE ANY OF THESE WAS UNSAFE AND ILLEGAL. I CANNOT ACCEPT A CLRNC IN MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, IE, WESTERN UNITED STATES, UNTIL THE DRIFT-DOWN CAPABILITY HAS BEEN CHKED. HE SAID HE WOULD PULL THE TAPES AND LET ME KNOW ABOUT HIS DECISION TO VIOLATE ME. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS A TYPICAL BUREAUCRATIC APCH TO THIS PROB. I GUESS I STEPPED ON HIS EMPIRE AND WILL BE SLAPPED DOWN FOR IT. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT I DO NOT DESERVE A VIOLATION BUT WHAT I DO DESERVE IS A WRITTEN APOLOGY FROM THE SUPVR FOR HIS TOTAL DISREGARD OF MY RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPT. HIS ONLY CONCERN SEEMS TO BE THE OP OF HIS EMPIRE.

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.