 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ZFW low altitude sector controller expresses various opinions when a B737-300 pilot advises of a 250 KT speed restr due to fuel burn concerns.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 587086 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200307 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | navaid : ttt.vor |
| State Reference | TX |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 13500 msl bound upper : 24000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zfw.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B737-300 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude climbout : vacating altitude |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zfw.artcc |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Flight Phase | climbout : vacating altitude climbout : intermediate altitude |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : radar |
| Qualification | controller : radar pilot : instrument |
| Experience | controller radar : 21 flight time total : 6500 |
| ASRS Report | 587086 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : departure controller : approach |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : separated traffic |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 36000 vertical : 0 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Narrative:
I was working lake/quitman low sector. The first center sector for departures out of dfw terminal area. Dfw approach called and informed me that air carrier X was doing 250 KTS (not assigned airspeed) and the aircraft behind was assigned 250 KTS to maintain longitudinal separation. Air carrier X was a dfw-ZZZ that departed dfw at XA09Z, a B737-300. When air carrier X checked on the frequency, I asked if the 250 KTS was an equipment restr. The pilot said negative. I was using minimum separation, thus requiring speed control. I assigned air carrier X to maintain 280 KTS or greater, if unable advise. The pilot informed me he must check his fuel burn and refused the clearance. I had to call the high altitude sector to get a higher altitude for this aircraft behind and then reassign air carrier X a lower altitude in attempt to maintain separation. I then once again assigned air carrier X maintain 280 KTS or greater. The pilot once again spoke of his fuel burn. I have been an ATC specialist for 21 yrs and have never had a pilot refuse an ATC clearance, much less because of fuel concerns. I don't recall seeing that option in the regulations. Air carrier X was requesting a higher altitude than the aircraft behind. My decision was to get air carrier X his requested altitude above the other aircraft. Then I was forced to go to my 'plan B.' air carrier X was restr to a lower altitude. I am sure the pilots refusing this speed restr eventually cost the aircraft much more fuel than the pilot thought he could save by reducing airspeed. It is my opinion, the ATC system will fail if controllers must explain all ATC clrncs. I do not have time for such negotiations. At one point during the conversation, air carrier X said he might give me 275 KTS -- not 280 KTS. This is a safety issue and must be addressed immediately. This pilot must be dealt with to insure safety for all users. He can fly VFR at any speed he likes -- to block up the system.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ZFW LOW ALT SECTOR CTLR EXPRESSES VARIOUS OPINIONS WHEN A B737-300 PLT ADVISES OF A 250 KT SPD RESTR DUE TO FUEL BURN CONCERNS.
Narrative: I WAS WORKING LAKE/QUITMAN LOW SECTOR. THE FIRST CTR SECTOR FOR DEPS OUT OF DFW TERMINAL AREA. DFW APCH CALLED AND INFORMED ME THAT ACR X WAS DOING 250 KTS (NOT ASSIGNED AIRSPD) AND THE ACFT BEHIND WAS ASSIGNED 250 KTS TO MAINTAIN LONGITUDINAL SEPARATION. ACR X WAS A DFW-ZZZ THAT DEPARTED DFW AT XA09Z, A B737-300. WHEN ACR X CHKED ON THE FREQ, I ASKED IF THE 250 KTS WAS AN EQUIP RESTR. THE PLT SAID NEGATIVE. I WAS USING MINIMUM SEPARATION, THUS REQUIRING SPD CTL. I ASSIGNED ACR X TO MAINTAIN 280 KTS OR GREATER, IF UNABLE ADVISE. THE PLT INFORMED ME HE MUST CHK HIS FUEL BURN AND REFUSED THE CLRNC. I HAD TO CALL THE HIGH ALT SECTOR TO GET A HIGHER ALT FOR THIS ACFT BEHIND AND THEN REASSIGN ACR X A LOWER ALT IN ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION. I THEN ONCE AGAIN ASSIGNED ACR X MAINTAIN 280 KTS OR GREATER. THE PLT ONCE AGAIN SPOKE OF HIS FUEL BURN. I HAVE BEEN AN ATC SPECIALIST FOR 21 YRS AND HAVE NEVER HAD A PLT REFUSE AN ATC CLRNC, MUCH LESS BECAUSE OF FUEL CONCERNS. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT OPTION IN THE REGS. ACR X WAS REQUESTING A HIGHER ALT THAN THE ACFT BEHIND. MY DECISION WAS TO GET ACR X HIS REQUESTED ALT ABOVE THE OTHER ACFT. THEN I WAS FORCED TO GO TO MY 'PLAN B.' ACR X WAS RESTR TO A LOWER ALT. I AM SURE THE PLTS REFUSING THIS SPD RESTR EVENTUALLY COST THE ACFT MUCH MORE FUEL THAN THE PLT THOUGHT HE COULD SAVE BY REDUCING AIRSPD. IT IS MY OPINION, THE ATC SYS WILL FAIL IF CTLRS MUST EXPLAIN ALL ATC CLRNCS. I DO NOT HAVE TIME FOR SUCH NEGOTIATIONS. AT ONE POINT DURING THE CONVERSATION, ACR X SAID HE MIGHT GIVE ME 275 KTS -- NOT 280 KTS. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND MUST BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY. THIS PLT MUST BE DEALT WITH TO INSURE SAFETY FOR ALL USERS. HE CAN FLY VFR AT ANY SPD HE LIKES -- TO BLOCK UP THE SYS.
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.