Narrative:

(Air carrier), a TCASII B737/a en route to abq was stopped at FL270. He had opposite direction traffic descending to FL280 en route to bur and additional traffic swbound to hec at FL280. (Air carrier X) wanted to know where his traffic was and why he was stopped at FL270. The controller issued the traffic and said to exact further climb in 20 mi. (Air carrier X) didn't respond and the controller verified that (air carrier X) copied the message. The pilot said he did and then complained about the amount of fuel he was burning at FL270. The pilot then stated he had 'the traffic on the box' and attempted to persuade the controller to allow him to jump the traffic. Once again a pilot is using TCASII as though he was a controller, and questioning a controller's ability to do his job. TCASII is not ATC certified equipment and is supposed to be transparent to the ATC system. Pilots utilizing TCASII in this fashion are interfering with the ATC system. I'm very concerned that the pilot of (air carrier X) would be more concerned about his fuel burn than his safety. I'm also concerned about the interfering in a controller's time and frequency blocking, it definitely has a negative impact on things when this happens. For example, while (air carrier X) was tying up a controller's time over what was a safe and proper operation, a (air carrier Y) airline L1011 was left on a spacing vector to lax too long. I wonder how much fuel that cost that pilot. Use TCASII as it was designed for and don't think you've become a controller when it's in your cockpit.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN MLG COMPLAINS TO CTLR ABOUT BEING HELD IN CLB FOR ACFT SEPARATION THAT IS INDICATED TO FLC ON TCASII AS 'NO PROB.'

Narrative: (ACR), A TCASII B737/A ENRTE TO ABQ WAS STOPPED AT FL270. HE HAD OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC DSNDING TO FL280 ENRTE TO BUR AND ADDITIONAL TFC SWBOUND TO HEC AT FL280. (ACR X) WANTED TO KNOW WHERE HIS TFC WAS AND WHY HE WAS STOPPED AT FL270. THE CTLR ISSUED THE TFC AND SAID TO EXACT FURTHER CLB IN 20 MI. (ACR X) DIDN'T RESPOND AND THE CTLR VERIFIED THAT (ACR X) COPIED THE MESSAGE. THE PLT SAID HE DID AND THEN COMPLAINED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF FUEL HE WAS BURNING AT FL270. THE PLT THEN STATED HE HAD 'THE TFC ON THE BOX' AND ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE THE CTLR TO ALLOW HIM TO JUMP THE TFC. ONCE AGAIN A PLT IS USING TCASII AS THOUGH HE WAS A CTLR, AND QUESTIONING A CTLR'S ABILITY TO DO HIS JOB. TCASII IS NOT ATC CERTIFIED EQUIP AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE TRANSPARENT TO THE ATC SYS. PLTS UTILIZING TCASII IN THIS FASHION ARE INTERFERING WITH THE ATC SYS. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THE PLT OF (ACR X) WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HIS FUEL BURN THAN HIS SAFETY. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTERFERING IN A CTLR'S TIME AND FREQ BLOCKING, IT DEFINITELY HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THINGS WHEN THIS HAPPENS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE (ACR X) WAS TYING UP A CTLR'S TIME OVER WHAT WAS A SAFE AND PROPER OP, A (ACR Y) AIRLINE L1011 WAS LEFT ON A SPACING VECTOR TO LAX TOO LONG. I WONDER HOW MUCH FUEL THAT COST THAT PLT. USE TCASII AS IT WAS DESIGNED FOR AND DON'T THINK YOU'VE BECOME A CTLR WHEN IT'S IN YOUR COCKPIT.

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.