Flight levels, and those that don't cooperate

[411A]

Flying eastbound across Africa last night, I heard an interesting conversation on the ATC frequency.
EgyptAir was being asked to descend to accomodate crossing restrictions in the Khartoum FIR, and he firmly objected and positively refused to comply with ATC instructions, causing a major conflict.
His excuse...he had a long flight remaining, and thought the OTHER aircraft should descend, and apparently was unconcerned about the altitude conflict, with less than three minutes separation.
Now, I was at FL270 (a nice smooth ride, with plenty of fuel) so was unable to hear how the conflict was resolved.
These refusals to comply seem to me to be more common than in the past...wonder why?
And even perhaps more important, what can be done about it?

[I-2021]

These refusals to comply seem to me to be more common than in the past...wonder why?

TCAS-II equipment ?

[Brian Abraham]

Makes one ask the question "what does the C in ATC stand for?"

[3 Holer]

Co-Ordinator maybe, as it would appear there was no controlling in this case.

[outofsynch]

How many times have I been descended for a 'national' airline to reamain at cruise, and then he being given descent just after we crossed....? And we still had 50+% of our cruise to go. If it happens in Europe, it must happen in Africa!

[Fly3]

His company may have cut his fuel reserves to such an extent that any time spent not cruising at optimum levels caused him major grief.

[Henry VIII]

His company may have cut his fuel reserves to such an extent that any time spent not cruising at optimum levels caused him major grief.
It makes sense.

[galdian]

If it makes sense then why not tell ATC and "negotiate" what you require and why??
To simply refuse seems arrogant and defeats all the concepts of CRM (which, surprisingly is a concept not restricted to pilots solely but more a "state of mind") which I, personally, think is the single greatest step forward (regarding human factors) in aviation over the last 30 years.

Have had numerous knock about discussions with an ATC mate (ie understand this, no pilots, no flying, no need for you ATC guys etc etc) however in all seriousness they should have the "big" picture and you would hope their requests are fair and reasonable.
If in doubt ask and/or negotiate.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Indian ATC: Air Arabia, desend FL 320.

Air Arabia: Negative, we do not have fuel for FL 320.

Indian ATC: You are in conflict with other traffic, desend FL 320 now.

Air Arabia: We do not have fuel for FL 320, can't you make the other flight desend?

Maybe it's time for some pilots (and airlines) to have a look at "Rules of the air" again?

[haughtney1]

Try flying into CDG.......

Air 123..head left 270 for spacing....

Air France 254....right turn for the LOC..you are number 1 (all spoken in French of course!:hmm: )

[FerrypilotDK]

Actually, the ATC has the responsibility to separate traffic, but the PIC has the overall responsibility for the safety of his flight. If an ATC clearance would mean he cannot complete the flight, he has an obligation to not accept the clearance.

[Miserlou]

I'd say if the reserves are so tight that the flight can't continue then the captain has already neglected his duties. This instruction is, after all, not necessarily binding for the rest of the flight.

Not complying and causing an TCAS RA (or actually banging into another aircraft) would cause more hassle than having to do some in-flight replanning.
I believe that's what the route-reserve bit is about, non-optimum levels and different than forecast winds.

Oh, how that Air France comment sounds familiar!

[tired]

FerrypilotDK - bollocks! He can always land enroute for more fuel if he's that tight. Ignoring this particular ATC instruction might potentially result in 2 aircraft not completing their flights.............

To be fair, I've spent much of my career in African skies and in general the guys are very good about helping each other with levels. Every so often you do come across some tosser, such as 411A describes, who doesn't give a damn about anyone else but fortunately they seem to be fairly few and far between. Ironically it generally seems to happen when ATC is trying to control, very rarely when guys are sorting it out between themsleves on 126.9. There must be moral in there somewhere!

[Flight Detent]

This sort of thing has been going on for some time.

When I used to fly long distances, and faced with small descents to accomodate crossing traffic, or anything else for that matter, we just descended as requested, and immediately requested a climb back to our original level, or better, and mostly got our request within a reasonable amount of time.
It was never a real problem, I thought it was always good for keeping everybody awake doing all the necessary descent things as well as setting up the cruise again.

Cheers, FD :hmm:

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Pilots used to argue more before RVSM. They don't seem to mind being bumped 1000ft. Modern domestic aircraft are flying much higher too, so more levels for all.

Many moons ago used to hear pilots arguefying heaps on HF in SE Asia, a game of chicken to get the other guy to descend. Looks like it is still standard somewhere:ugh: