PC12 pilot reported declining a descent clearance from ZNY due to his distance offshore and engine o...

Narrative:

I was on a jet airway that was assigned to me by ATC (different from the one that I filed) that would take me approximately 40 NM offshore. Approximately 50 NM prior to the point at which I would be the furthest from the shoreline; ATC (ny center) instructed me to descend from FL210 to 11;000. I replied that I was unable because I was single-engine and that would mean that I was out of glide range of the shoreline. I was surprised by the angry reaction of the ATC controller; who basically asked me what I wanted to do then. I suggested that I navigate to an intersection that would take me closer to the shoreline and put me on another jet airway. The controller issued a two left turns (bringing me closer to shore) which I complied with; and then asked when I could begin my descent (which I replied to). I was instructed to take down a number to call when I landed. The next controller issued a descent clearance which required me to descend at over 2;000 fpm which I complied with.I called the number after landing; spoke to the operations manager in charge (omic); apologized; and explained that I wasn't trying to be difficult but that I was being extra careful. The omic said he understood; that the controllers are aware of glide ratios; that as a pilot I was likely unaware of letters of agreement the different sectors have with one another; and that if I don't think I could accept a descent I should file over land. The omic was very understanding of my predicament.I believe that the controller way overreacted and could have created a dangerous situation by causing a completely unnecessary distraction to me and other pilots on the frequency by both the manner in which he addressed (his tone of voice) and the content of what he said. I believe that all of my communications were professional; yet he made me feel like I was doing something wrong or was an idiot. Neither were the case.for my part; in retrospect; perhaps I should have simply complied with the initial descent clearance but done so at 500 fpm which would have stretched out the descent until I was closer to the shoreline; rather than indicating that I was unable. I also have a much better understanding of the issue from the controller's standpoint (thanks to the omic).

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PC12 pilot reported declining a descent clearance from ZNY due to his distance offshore and engine out glide considerations. The Controller was not happy and a phone number was provided for a discussion after landing.

Narrative: I was on a jet airway that was assigned to me by ATC (different from the one that I filed) that would take me approximately 40 NM offshore. Approximately 50 NM prior to the point at which I would be the furthest from the shoreline; ATC (NY Center) instructed me to descend from FL210 to 11;000. I replied that I was unable because I was single-engine and that would mean that I was out of glide range of the shoreline. I was surprised by the angry reaction of the ATC controller; who basically asked me what I wanted to do then. I suggested that I navigate to an intersection that would take me closer to the shoreline and put me on another jet airway. The controller issued a two left turns (bringing me closer to shore) which I complied with; and then asked when I could begin my descent (which I replied to). I was instructed to take down a number to call when I landed. The next controller issued a descent clearance which required me to descend at over 2;000 fpm which I complied with.I called the number after landing; spoke to the Operations Manager In Charge (OMIC); apologized; and explained that I wasn't trying to be difficult but that I was being extra careful. The OMIC said he understood; that the controllers are aware of glide ratios; that as a pilot I was likely unaware of letters of agreement the different sectors have with one another; and that if I don't think I could accept a descent I should file over land. The OMIC was very understanding of my predicament.I believe that the controller way overreacted and could have created a dangerous situation by causing a completely unnecessary distraction to me and other pilots on the frequency by both the manner in which he addressed (his tone of voice) and the content of what he said. I believe that all of my communications were professional; yet he made me feel like I was doing something wrong or was an idiot. Neither were the case.For my part; in retrospect; perhaps I should have simply complied with the initial descent clearance but done so at 500 fpm which would have stretched out the descent until I was closer to the shoreline; rather than indicating that I was unable. I also have a much better understanding of the issue from the controller's standpoint (thanks to the OMIC).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Attributes
ACN	1359438
Time
Date	201505
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZNY.ARTCC
State Reference	NY
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	PC-12
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying Single Pilot
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Private
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 75 Flight Crew Total 2200 Flight Crew Type 600
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

PC12 pilot reported declining a descent clearance from ZNY due to his distance offshore and engine out glide considerations. The controller was not happy and a phone number was provided for a discussion after landing.