Narrative:

Established on J65, ZLA cleared us direct to btg. We had been dispatched using drift-down procedures and were unable to accept that clearance. We told center we needed to stay on the ehf to fmg portion of our flight plan as a direct routing would take us through mora's from 13600 ft, 14800 ft, and 16800 ft and our single engine performance was below those altitudes. Center then cleared us direct to fmg then to btg. This again would take us through mora's which were higher than our single engine capability. We refused this clearance and asked for direct ehf. Center said he needed us on a vector northeast of ehf to intercept J5 north of ehf for traffic that he was trying to climb. At 500 mph we were scrambling to see if that vector would take us through the high mora's. I told him we could take a delay vector west of ehf as I knew the terrain was good there. By this time the controller must have been getting frustrated because he just ignored my request and said nothing. About this time we determined that we could accept a vector northeast of ehf without flying through the high mora's and did that with no further comment from center. My concern is that the controller seemed to have no knowledge of our en route terrain concerns and did not seem to be concerned with our problem. My impression was that if the vector northeast of ehf had taken us through mora's which were too high, the controller would still have wanted us to take the vector. I know southern california has traffic issues that I am not even aware of, but perhaps if the controllers were aware of our en route terrain clearance they may be less inclined to ignore our requirements. Supplemental information from acn 611006: we were approximately 30 NM southeast of lando on J65 when ZLA cleared us direct to btg VOR. Since this flight was filed using en route drift-down performance, we told the controller we'd have to check our terrain clearance requirements and get right back to him, since his direct would take us off of our filed routing. After looking at the mora's for the direct routing (13600 ft, 14800 ft and 16800 ft on the high altitude chart #2) and checking our single engine drift-down altitude of 17000 to 3500 ft MD80 gross to net gradient conversion adjustment, we determined that we could not accept this direct routing clearance from ZLA. So we told the controller this and also that we needed to fly our filed routing on the ehf to fmg segment to comply with our en route criteria. The controller told us he needed us off our filed routing and to turn northbound to join J5 north of ehf because he wanted to climb some traffic. He didn't seem to care about our terrain clearance requirements or how this could make us illegal.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 CREW REFUSED A ZLA CTLR'S REROUTING REQUEST BECAUSE THE RTE WAS ABOVE THE SINGLE ENG SVC CEILING OF THE ACFT.

Narrative: ESTABLISHED ON J65, ZLA CLRED US DIRECT TO BTG. WE HAD BEEN DISPATCHED USING DRIFT-DOWN PROCS AND WERE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THAT CLRNC. WE TOLD CTR WE NEEDED TO STAY ON THE EHF TO FMG PORTION OF OUR FLT PLAN AS A DIRECT ROUTING WOULD TAKE US THROUGH MORA'S FROM 13600 FT, 14800 FT, AND 16800 FT AND OUR SINGLE ENG PERFORMANCE WAS BELOW THOSE ALTS. CTR THEN CLRED US DIRECT TO FMG THEN TO BTG. THIS AGAIN WOULD TAKE US THROUGH MORA'S WHICH WERE HIGHER THAN OUR SINGLE ENG CAPABILITY. WE REFUSED THIS CLRNC AND ASKED FOR DIRECT EHF. CTR SAID HE NEEDED US ON A VECTOR NE OF EHF TO INTERCEPT J5 N OF EHF FOR TFC THAT HE WAS TRYING TO CLB. AT 500 MPH WE WERE SCRAMBLING TO SEE IF THAT VECTOR WOULD TAKE US THROUGH THE HIGH MORA'S. I TOLD HIM WE COULD TAKE A DELAY VECTOR W OF EHF AS I KNEW THE TERRAIN WAS GOOD THERE. BY THIS TIME THE CTLR MUST HAVE BEEN GETTING FRUSTRATED BECAUSE HE JUST IGNORED MY REQUEST AND SAID NOTHING. ABOUT THIS TIME WE DETERMINED THAT WE COULD ACCEPT A VECTOR NE OF EHF WITHOUT FLYING THROUGH THE HIGH MORA'S AND DID THAT WITH NO FURTHER COMMENT FROM CTR. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE CTLR SEEMED TO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF OUR ENRTE TERRAIN CONCERNS AND DID NOT SEEM TO BE CONCERNED WITH OUR PROB. MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT IF THE VECTOR NE OF EHF HAD TAKEN US THROUGH MORA'S WHICH WERE TOO HIGH, THE CTLR WOULD STILL HAVE WANTED US TO TAKE THE VECTOR. I KNOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HAS TFC ISSUES THAT I AM NOT EVEN AWARE OF, BUT PERHAPS IF THE CTLRS WERE AWARE OF OUR ENRTE TERRAIN CLRNC THEY MAY BE LESS INCLINED TO IGNORE OUR REQUIREMENTS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 611006: WE WERE APPROX 30 NM SE OF LANDO ON J65 WHEN ZLA CLRED US DIRECT TO BTG VOR. SINCE THIS FLT WAS FILED USING ENRTE DRIFT-DOWN PERFORMANCE, WE TOLD THE CTLR WE'D HAVE TO CHK OUR TERRAIN CLRNC REQUIREMENTS AND GET RIGHT BACK TO HIM, SINCE HIS DIRECT WOULD TAKE US OFF OF OUR FILED ROUTING. AFTER LOOKING AT THE MORA'S FOR THE DIRECT ROUTING (13600 FT, 14800 FT AND 16800 FT ON THE HIGH ALT CHART #2) AND CHKING OUR SINGLE ENG DRIFT-DOWN ALT OF 17000 TO 3500 FT MD80 GROSS TO NET GRADIENT CONVERSION ADJUSTMENT, WE DETERMINED THAT WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THIS DIRECT ROUTING CLRNC FROM ZLA. SO WE TOLD THE CTLR THIS AND ALSO THAT WE NEEDED TO FLY OUR FILED ROUTING ON THE EHF TO FMG SEGMENT TO COMPLY WITH OUR ENRTE CRITERIA. THE CTLR TOLD US HE NEEDED US OFF OUR FILED ROUTING AND TO TURN NBOUND TO JOIN J5 N OF EHF BECAUSE HE WANTED TO CLB SOME TFC. HE DIDN'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT OUR TERRAIN CLRNC REQUIREMENTS OR HOW THIS COULD MAKE US ILLEGAL.

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.