Narrative:

The pilot was working dulles approach on 126.10 MHZ. Dulles called traffic as an airbus at 8500 ft and 3 NM descending and cautioned us for wake turbulence. Pilot of subject aircraft requested descent to 5000 ft. Reply from approach was 'maintain 7000 ft.' pilot expressed concern about wake turbulence and again was told to 'maintain 7000 ft.' pilot then became concerned as to the closeness of the airbus (as did I) and said to avoid wake turbulence he was descending to 5000 ft now, and did so. The day was good VFR, no visible traffic around, and no conflicts occurred. The airbus continued descending and passed us without any turbulence encounter. The stated distance by ATC (later) was 1000 ft and 2 mi. Too close for me. Dulles controller, and subsequently supervisor, acted in my estimation, with hostility to the pilot using his command authority/authorized to avoid what I perceived as an obvious dangerous condition. This is the fourth time I have been too close to heavy aircraft in dulles airspace under their control in recent times. The other times I was PIC and asked for altitude or other deviation and received it without question. I believe this instance was totally unnecessary as there was no reason that a lower altitude could not have been allowed. I think the controller and the supervisor need an attitude adjustment before someone gets hurt in an upset occurrence! I think this really is a safety issue, especially in light of recent accidents. I must say once again, this incident upset me a lot. I was dumbfounded, horrified, and angry. I touched not a control, said not a word on the radio, and gave no advice because the pilot did just fine in his avoidance decision. I can assure you that if he had not been completely competent I might have been pressed to remain aloof. I am really concerned that this is an attitude that is becoming, or might be, common. It -- for safety reasons -- needs changing before it infects other controllers in the facility. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter is a rated PF, as a passenger, on a PA31-325 with a friend who was the PIC. They were under the control of iad approach control when they were advised that an airbus A300 would be crossing in front of them as it descended. The PIC asked to descend to avoid the airbus wake, but was told to remain at 7000 ft. After several unsuccessful attempts to persuade the controller to allow the descent, the pilot descended to 5000 ft without permission. The PIC later discussed the situation with the supervisor of the working controller. This supervisor got, according to the reporter, quite angry and told the PIC that he was filing a violation for leaving an assigned altitude. The next day another supervisor called and said that he had reviewed the events and felt that a violation should not have been filed, but that the situation was now in the hands of the FSDO. The reporter said that the PIC requested that all tapes and radar tracks be saved for the investigation. Later, the reporter thinks a week had passed, the reporter and the PIC talked to a FSDO investigator who discussed the tapes and radar tracks with them. The FSDO investigator said that the tapes and the radar information were not very useful because they only had the communication and tracks of the PA31-325 available. The FSDO investigator later told them that no action would be taken against the PIC.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A GA PLT DSNDS OUT OF 7000 FT ASSIGNED TO AVOID THE WAKE OF A WDB THAT DSNDED ACROSS HIS PATH. THE APCH CTLR AND HIS SUPVR FILED A VIOLATION AGAINST THE PLT, BUT THE FSDO INVESTIGATOR HAS DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION. PA31/A300.

Narrative: THE PLT WAS WORKING DULLES APCH ON 126.10 MHZ. DULLES CALLED TFC AS AN AIRBUS AT 8500 FT AND 3 NM DSNDING AND CAUTIONED US FOR WAKE TURB. PLT OF SUBJECT ACFT REQUESTED DSCNT TO 5000 FT. REPLY FROM APCH WAS 'MAINTAIN 7000 FT.' PLT EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT WAKE TURB AND AGAIN WAS TOLD TO 'MAINTAIN 7000 FT.' PLT THEN BECAME CONCERNED AS TO THE CLOSENESS OF THE AIRBUS (AS DID I) AND SAID TO AVOID WAKE TURB HE WAS DSNDING TO 5000 FT NOW, AND DID SO. THE DAY WAS GOOD VFR, NO VISIBLE TFC AROUND, AND NO CONFLICTS OCCURRED. THE AIRBUS CONTINUED DSNDING AND PASSED US WITHOUT ANY TURB ENCOUNTER. THE STATED DISTANCE BY ATC (LATER) WAS 1000 FT AND 2 MI. TOO CLOSE FOR ME. DULLES CTLR, AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUPVR, ACTED IN MY ESTIMATION, WITH HOSTILITY TO THE PLT USING HIS COMMAND AUTH TO AVOID WHAT I PERCEIVED AS AN OBVIOUS DANGEROUS CONDITION. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I HAVE BEEN TOO CLOSE TO HVY ACFT IN DULLES AIRSPACE UNDER THEIR CTL IN RECENT TIMES. THE OTHER TIMES I WAS PIC AND ASKED FOR ALT OR OTHER DEV AND RECEIVED IT WITHOUT QUESTION. I BELIEVE THIS INSTANCE WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AS THERE WAS NO REASON THAT A LOWER ALT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. I THINK THE CTLR AND THE SUPVR NEED AN ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT IN AN UPSET OCCURRENCE! I THINK THIS REALLY IS A SAFETY ISSUE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF RECENT ACCIDENTS. I MUST SAY ONCE AGAIN, THIS INCIDENT UPSET ME A LOT. I WAS DUMBFOUNDED, HORRIFIED, AND ANGRY. I TOUCHED NOT A CTL, SAID NOT A WORD ON THE RADIO, AND GAVE NO ADVICE BECAUSE THE PLT DID JUST FINE IN HIS AVOIDANCE DECISION. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IF HE HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETELY COMPETENT I MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESSED TO REMAIN ALOOF. I AM REALLY CONCERNED THAT THIS IS AN ATTITUDE THAT IS BECOMING, OR MIGHT BE, COMMON. IT -- FOR SAFETY REASONS -- NEEDS CHANGING BEFORE IT INFECTS OTHER CTLRS IN THE FACILITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR IS A RATED PF, AS A PAX, ON A PA31-325 WITH A FRIEND WHO WAS THE PIC. THEY WERE UNDER THE CTL OF IAD APCH CTL WHEN THEY WERE ADVISED THAT AN AIRBUS A300 WOULD BE XING IN FRONT OF THEM AS IT DSNDED. THE PIC ASKED TO DSND TO AVOID THE AIRBUS WAKE, BUT WAS TOLD TO REMAIN AT 7000 FT. AFTER SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO PERSUADE THE CTLR TO ALLOW THE DSCNT, THE PLT DSNDED TO 5000 FT WITHOUT PERMISSION. THE PIC LATER DISCUSSED THE SIT WITH THE SUPVR OF THE WORKING CTLR. THIS SUPVR GOT, ACCORDING TO THE RPTR, QUITE ANGRY AND TOLD THE PIC THAT HE WAS FILING A VIOLATION FOR LEAVING AN ASSIGNED ALT. THE NEXT DAY ANOTHER SUPVR CALLED AND SAID THAT HE HAD REVIEWED THE EVENTS AND FELT THAT A VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED, BUT THAT THE SIT WAS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE FSDO. THE RPTR SAID THAT THE PIC REQUESTED THAT ALL TAPES AND RADAR TRACKS BE SAVED FOR THE INVESTIGATION. LATER, THE RPTR THINKS A WK HAD PASSED, THE RPTR AND THE PIC TALKED TO A FSDO INVESTIGATOR WHO DISCUSSED THE TAPES AND RADAR TRACKS WITH THEM. THE FSDO INVESTIGATOR SAID THAT THE TAPES AND THE RADAR INFO WERE NOT VERY USEFUL BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAD THE COM AND TRACKS OF THE PA31-325 AVAILABLE. THE FSDO INVESTIGATOR LATER TOLD THEM THAT NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE PIC.

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.