ACR HVT FLT CREW RESISTED CLRNC TO LOWER ALT RESULTING IN LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION OF OCEANIC ROUTE.

Narrative

HAD ENG FAILURE IN 4 ENG JET AT FL370. DUE TO LOSS OF OIL QUANTITY AND PRESSURE SECURED ENG. ALSO REQUESTED RECEIVED CLRNC FROM OAK OCEANIC TO DSND TO FL330. OAK ISSUED CLRNC TO FL330. OAK HAD ALSO CLRED TFC TO SAME POINT 16 DEGS 00.0 N 150 DEGS 00.0 E AT FL330--OPP DIRECTION. I WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT LOWER DUE FUEL USE ON #3 ENG; BEING 600 MI FROM LAND. DID NOT KNOW OF OPP DIRECTION TFC AT THIS TIME. ATC REQUESTED WE DROP TO FL310. I SAID UNABLE DUE FUEL STATE. REQUEST STALL AT FL330. ATC ADVISED US OF OPP DIRECTION TFC. ATC HAD OPP DIRECTION TFC; SAME ROUTE AND SAME ALT. THIS TFC WAS IN RADAR CONTACT WITH GUAM CENTER. OAK SAYS I VIOLATED SEP STANDARDS FOR OCEANIC CLRNC (20 MIN AND 100 NM) BY NOT IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTING FL310 APPROX 10 MINS AFTER RECEIVING FL330. QUESTION: WHY DID OAK OCEANIC CLR ME TO FL330 IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY KNEW IT WOULD CAUSE A CONFLICT WITHIN 10 MINS? ALSO; THEY KNEW I HAD LOST 1 ENG AND SECURED THIS ENG. WHY DIDN'T THEY INSTRUCT OPP DIRECTION TFC TO CLB OR DSND WHILE IN POSITIVE RADAR CTL? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR CALLED ZOA BY TELEPHONE ON THE GND IN GUAM. SUPVR SAID THAT HIS FAILURE TO REACH FL310 ON TIME HAD CAUSED A LOSS OF SEP WITH THE OUTBND ACFT THAT WAS ALREADY AT FL310. RPTR STATED THAT HE TOLD THE SUPVR THAT HE FELT WITH AN ENG OUT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO STAY AT HIS ALT AND THE OTHER ACFT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DSNDED. THE SUPVR DISAGREED AND STATED THAT HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PROCESS A DEVIATION RPT. RPTR HAS RECEIVED PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE OUTLINING AN FAA INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER. RPTR STATED THAT SUPVR WAS VERY BELLIGERENT ON THE TELEPHONE AND IT APPEARED THAT HE WOULD NOT REALLY LISTEN TO RPTR'S STATEMENT THAT WITH AN ENG OTS; HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONSIDERATION FOR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.