Narrative:

En route to dulles from the south at FL330 and with no traffic yet showing as a problem on TCASII, ATC asked us to slow from our present mach .85 to .75. We informed him that we were unable mach .74 but would take another altitude if it would help. (Still no traffic conflict showing on TCASII.) he slowed us to mach .78. We asked where the traffic was (while we were slowing) and got no reply. Ahead and off to the side we saw at approximately 18 mi a return at FL330. Again we asked if we could go to a lower altitude and maintain our normal speed. He said turn left to a 350 degree heading. The captain turned the aircraft on autoplt to 350 degrees and while turning again asked, 'where's our traffic.' I think that ATC either didn't believe we were slowing, turning or both. (We had channel 9 on and so all the passenger who were listening heard and witnessed the interaction between ATC and our communications.) we, in fact, had slowed and had turned. ATC brought us back around to the east to a 080 degree heading as we went in-trail to dulles. Up to this point we had made up 5 of the 7 mins that we had been behind. Our scheduled mach was .839 approximately .84, so .85 wasn't too much of a stretch to try to make up time, used an extra several 100 pounds of gas, and for what? We ended up approximately 7 mins late. Things that might keep this from happening. 1) put slow aircraft in the slow lanes (altitudes) the new rj's are fuel efficient have them fly lower, or have them turn off course. 2) use more accurate language as pilots to tell ATC we are slowing we are now turning, etc, so that there is no doubt. 3) take a deep breath...chill out, everyone. It does get so frustrating every time coming up from the south to be slowed, there must be a solution. Supplemental information from acn 471605: ATC again said, 'turn left 350 degrees.' I realized my error of not reading back the clearance and said, 'left turn 350 degrees, where is the traffic?' ATC finally responded, 'traffic, 1 O'clock position, 10 mi, FL330, 90 KT overtake.' we headed 350 degrees for about 1 1/2 mins and then were turned back to heading 080 degrees for about 1 1/2 mins. We then received a clearance direct to fak (heading approximately 40 degrees) and mach .78. I asked if iad (destination airport) had any in-trail restrs. I never received a reply. We asked our dispatcher if he knew of any in-trail restrs. He said he knew of none. The safety issues here are, the lack of response by ATC to traffic inquiries. I did ask for the ATC facility's phone number. When I did the controller said, 'I think he'd like to talk to you too.' I did not understand that as a required call to ATC. After landing, there were some maintenance issues to rectify and I did not have the opportunity to call ATC. I think that in these days of ever increasing air traffic it would benefit us all if we fostered a better environment of cooperation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 FLC GETS INTO A CONTENTIOUS POS WITH THE CTLR AT ZDC WHEN ASKED TO SLOW FOR TFC SPACING. CREW COMPLAINS OF NOT RECEIVING A REPLY REGARDING TFC AND REASON FOR AMENDED CLRNC BY ZDC.

Narrative: ENRTE TO DULLES FROM THE S AT FL330 AND WITH NO TFC YET SHOWING AS A PROB ON TCASII, ATC ASKED US TO SLOW FROM OUR PRESENT MACH .85 TO .75. WE INFORMED HIM THAT WE WERE UNABLE MACH .74 BUT WOULD TAKE ANOTHER ALT IF IT WOULD HELP. (STILL NO TFC CONFLICT SHOWING ON TCASII.) HE SLOWED US TO MACH .78. WE ASKED WHERE THE TFC WAS (WHILE WE WERE SLOWING) AND GOT NO REPLY. AHEAD AND OFF TO THE SIDE WE SAW AT APPROX 18 MI A RETURN AT FL330. AGAIN WE ASKED IF WE COULD GO TO A LOWER ALT AND MAINTAIN OUR NORMAL SPD. HE SAID TURN L TO A 350 DEG HDG. THE CAPT TURNED THE ACFT ON AUTOPLT TO 350 DEGS AND WHILE TURNING AGAIN ASKED, 'WHERE'S OUR TFC.' I THINK THAT ATC EITHER DIDN'T BELIEVE WE WERE SLOWING, TURNING OR BOTH. (WE HAD CHANNEL 9 ON AND SO ALL THE PAX WHO WERE LISTENING HEARD AND WITNESSED THE INTERACTION BTWN ATC AND OUR COMS.) WE, IN FACT, HAD SLOWED AND HAD TURNED. ATC BROUGHT US BACK AROUND TO THE E TO A 080 DEG HDG AS WE WENT IN-TRAIL TO DULLES. UP TO THIS POINT WE HAD MADE UP 5 OF THE 7 MINS THAT WE HAD BEEN BEHIND. OUR SCHEDULED MACH WAS .839 APPROX .84, SO .85 WASN'T TOO MUCH OF A STRETCH TO TRY TO MAKE UP TIME, USED AN EXTRA SEVERAL 100 LBS OF GAS, AND FOR WHAT? WE ENDED UP APPROX 7 MINS LATE. THINGS THAT MIGHT KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING. 1) PUT SLOW ACFT IN THE SLOW LANES (ALTS) THE NEW RJ'S ARE FUEL EFFICIENT HAVE THEM FLY LOWER, OR HAVE THEM TURN OFF COURSE. 2) USE MORE ACCURATE LANGUAGE AS PLTS TO TELL ATC WE ARE SLOWING WE ARE NOW TURNING, ETC, SO THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT. 3) TAKE A DEEP BREATH...CHILL OUT, EVERYONE. IT DOES GET SO FRUSTRATING EVERY TIME COMING UP FROM THE S TO BE SLOWED, THERE MUST BE A SOLUTION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 471605: ATC AGAIN SAID, 'TURN L 350 DEGS.' I REALIZED MY ERROR OF NOT READING BACK THE CLRNC AND SAID, 'L TURN 350 DEGS, WHERE IS THE TFC?' ATC FINALLY RESPONDED, 'TFC, 1 O'CLOCK POS, 10 MI, FL330, 90 KT OVERTAKE.' WE HEADED 350 DEGS FOR ABOUT 1 1/2 MINS AND THEN WERE TURNED BACK TO HEADING 080 DEGS FOR ABOUT 1 1/2 MINS. WE THEN RECEIVED A CLRNC DIRECT TO FAK (HEADING APPROX 40 DEGS) AND MACH .78. I ASKED IF IAD (DEST ARPT) HAD ANY IN-TRAIL RESTRS. I NEVER RECEIVED A REPLY. WE ASKED OUR DISPATCHER IF HE KNEW OF ANY IN-TRAIL RESTRS. HE SAID HE KNEW OF NONE. THE SAFETY ISSUES HERE ARE, THE LACK OF RESPONSE BY ATC TO TFC INQUIRIES. I DID ASK FOR THE ATC FACILITY'S PHONE NUMBER. WHEN I DID THE CTLR SAID, 'I THINK HE'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU TOO.' I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT AS A REQUIRED CALL TO ATC. AFTER LNDG, THERE WERE SOME MAINT ISSUES TO RECTIFY AND I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL ATC. I THINK THAT IN THESE DAYS OF EVER INCREASING AIR TFC IT WOULD BENEFIT US ALL IF WE FOSTERED A BETTER ENVIRONMENT OF COOPERATION.

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.