Narrative:

My flight took me from new airport to X16. Due to WX I cruised at 11,500'. I've made this trip at least a dozen times and I am therefore very familiar with the route and my aircraft's capability over it. I own an aircraft equipped with LORAN and will generally take on long direct routings wherever possible. Tampa is just about the limit of my fuel endurance. My routing, when VFR, is new-dauphin I., al-pfn-addax intersection-direct. I use 40J as an alternate fuel stop if necessary. Approximately 50 NM west of 40J, I calculated I could reach my destination and land with 45 min fuel. En route, I found it necessary to deviate slightly around both WX and an active warning area, however, the majority of the 176 NM leg was without incident. Jacksonville handed me off to tampa approximately 30 NM north of my destination. At that time I was offshore, descending to maintain VFR, and heading 150 degree direct to X16. After descending to 3500, in excellent VFR conditions, tpa approach attempted to turn me to the east. I subsequent discussion on this subject, it was revealed that the purpose was to have me cross the tpa localizer course at a faster rate. Because of the WX en route and the earlier deviation around a warning area, I advised tpa that I would be unable to accept any vectors and issued a min fuel advisory. Switching controllers, I was again issued vectors away and I stated that I felt I could not accept vectors other than to my destination. At this point I would judge that I was 15-20 NM north of tpa and I had been in contact with tpa approach for approximately 10 min. ATC then directed me to 'remain clear of the arsa'. I was in excellent VFR conditions, I judged myself to be below any localizer traffic, and my direct heading would certainly have taken me clear of the tpa approach course, albeit at a rate slightly less than that desired by ATC. Caught between a rock and a hard place, I deviated to the east and eventually ATC rescinded the arsa restriction. On safe arrival, I noted the surface winds favoring a landing to the north, therefore, I am left questioning whether the localizer was even in use. Subsequent to this incident, I contacted a tpa supervisor and voiced a complaint about the service I received. After investigating, he informed me that I was completely wrong in my interpretation of the minimum fuel advisory and that ATC had been completely correct in their actions. He further implied that should I not care to accept his interpretation of the situation, he would seek to violate me for failing to follow ATC instructions. Now, the issue of the violation aside, I have to say that I've been willing to discuss this issue and become educated throughout. My feeling, however, is that ATC will do literally anything to avoid a breach of procedure and will become inordinately defensive when challenged on that point. At no time did I ever enter arsa airspace or any other positive control area. I was under no obligation to even talk to ATC and I believe a simple 'cancel radar services' would probably have resolved the situation in my favor. Nevertheless, I generally feel that safe flight is enhanced when everyone possible is participating with ATC. Unfortunately, I now face a certificate action solely because a) I voluntarily chose to participate in VFR radar services beyond the arsa, B) I chose not to cancel when things didn't quite go my way, and C) because I made a complaint to the facility in question. What possible result can now occur given the threat of reprisal? I will probably never again choose to contact them or any other such facility. This most certainly does not enhance safety. If this were my first and only such experience with tpa, I would hesitate to complain. However, this is the 4TH such occasion when I've had difficulty with controllers in that area, and an informal poll of other GA pilots I'm acquainted with and who are highly safety conscious reassures my feeling that there is a problem with that facility seeking to maintain rigid procedure at the expense of safety and efficiency. I've had considerable experience in much higher density airspace, and I feel the handling in south florida has been the exception to the normally courteous and professional service I've received. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states that he had about :45 to :50 minutes of fuel remaining. The minimum fuel state to ATC was not exactly correct. He claims that he was not certain of the amount while he was airborne. He was reluctant to reprogram his LORAN C navigation instrument for the vectors so this was his one major reason for his not wanting to accept TRACON vectors. His relationship with the controllers at this TRACON is not the best that could be hoped for. A special letter is awaiting his attention. He believes it is in regard to not complying with approach controller's vectors.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT CLAIMING MINIMUM FUEL REFUSES HEADINGS GIVEN BY TRACON APCH CTLR.

Narrative: MY FLT TOOK ME FROM NEW ARPT TO X16. DUE TO WX I CRUISED AT 11,500'. I'VE MADE THIS TRIP AT LEAST A DOZEN TIMES AND I AM THEREFORE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ROUTE AND MY ACFT'S CAPABILITY OVER IT. I OWN AN ACFT EQUIPPED WITH LORAN AND WILL GENERALLY TAKE ON LONG DIRECT ROUTINGS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. TAMPA IS JUST ABOUT THE LIMIT OF MY FUEL ENDURANCE. MY ROUTING, WHEN VFR, IS NEW-DAUPHIN I., AL-PFN-ADDAX INTXN-DIRECT. I USE 40J AS AN ALTERNATE FUEL STOP IF NECESSARY. APPROX 50 NM W OF 40J, I CALCULATED I COULD REACH MY DEST AND LAND WITH 45 MIN FUEL. ENRTE, I FOUND IT NECESSARY TO DEVIATE SLIGHTLY AROUND BOTH WX AND AN ACTIVE WARNING AREA, HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF THE 176 NM LEG WAS WITHOUT INCIDENT. JACKSONVILLE HANDED ME OFF TO TAMPA APPROX 30 NM N OF MY DEST. AT THAT TIME I WAS OFFSHORE, DESCENDING TO MAINTAIN VFR, AND HDG 150 DEG DIRECT TO X16. AFTER DESCENDING TO 3500, IN EXCELLENT VFR CONDITIONS, TPA APCH ATTEMPTED TO TURN ME TO THE E. I SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION ON THIS SUBJECT, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO HAVE ME CROSS THE TPA LOC COURSE AT A FASTER RATE. BECAUSE OF THE WX ENRTE AND THE EARLIER DEVIATION AROUND A WARNING AREA, I ADVISED TPA THAT I WOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCEPT ANY VECTORS AND ISSUED A MIN FUEL ADVISORY. SWITCHING CTLRS, I WAS AGAIN ISSUED VECTORS AWAY AND I STATED THAT I FELT I COULD NOT ACCEPT VECTORS OTHER THAN TO MY DEST. AT THIS POINT I WOULD JUDGE THAT I WAS 15-20 NM N OF TPA AND I HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH TPA APCH FOR APPROX 10 MIN. ATC THEN DIRECTED ME TO 'REMAIN CLEAR OF THE ARSA'. I WAS IN EXCELLENT VFR CONDITIONS, I JUDGED MYSELF TO BE BELOW ANY LOC TFC, AND MY DIRECT HDG WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE TAKEN ME CLEAR OF THE TPA APCH COURSE, ALBEIT AT A RATE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THAT DESIRED BY ATC. CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, I DEVIATED TO THE E AND EVENTUALLY ATC RESCINDED THE ARSA RESTRICTION. ON SAFE ARRIVAL, I NOTED THE SURFACE WINDS FAVORING A LNDG TO THE NORTH, THEREFORE, I AM LEFT QUESTIONING WHETHER THE LOC WAS EVEN IN USE. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS INCIDENT, I CONTACTED A TPA SUPVR AND VOICED A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE SERVICE I RECEIVED. AFTER INVESTIGATING, HE INFORMED ME THAT I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG IN MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MINIMUM FUEL ADVISORY AND THAT ATC HAD BEEN COMPLETELY CORRECT IN THEIR ACTIONS. HE FURTHER IMPLIED THAT SHOULD I NOT CARE TO ACCEPT HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE SITUATION, HE WOULD SEEK TO VIOLATE ME FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ATC INSTRUCTIONS. NOW, THE ISSUE OF THE VIOLATION ASIDE, I HAVE TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN WILLING TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AND BECOME EDUCATED THROUGHOUT. MY FEELING, HOWEVER, IS THAT ATC WILL DO LITERALLY ANYTHING TO AVOID A BREACH OF PROC AND WILL BECOME INORDINATELY DEFENSIVE WHEN CHALLENGED ON THAT POINT. AT NO TIME DID I EVER ENTER ARSA AIRSPACE OR ANY OTHER PCA. I WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO EVEN TALK TO ATC AND I BELIEVE A SIMPLE 'CANCEL RADAR SERVICES' WOULD PROBABLY HAVE RESOLVED THE SITUATION IN MY FAVOR. NEVERTHELESS, I GENERALLY FEEL THAT SAFE FLT IS ENHANCED WHEN EVERYONE POSSIBLE IS PARTICIPATING WITH ATC. UNFORTUNATELY, I NOW FACE A CERTIFICATE ACTION SOLELY BECAUSE A) I VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN VFR RADAR SERVICES BEYOND THE ARSA, B) I CHOSE NOT TO CANCEL WHEN THINGS DIDN'T QUITE GO MY WAY, AND C) BECAUSE I MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE FAC IN QUESTION. WHAT POSSIBLE RESULT CAN NOW OCCUR GIVEN THE THREAT OF REPRISAL? I WILL PROBABLY NEVER AGAIN CHOOSE TO CONTACT THEM OR ANY OTHER SUCH FAC. THIS MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT ENHANCE SAFETY. IF THIS WERE MY FIRST AND ONLY SUCH EXPERIENCE WITH TPA, I WOULD HESITATE TO COMPLAIN. HOWEVER, THIS IS THE 4TH SUCH OCCASION WHEN I'VE HAD DIFFICULTY WITH CTLRS IN THAT AREA, AND AN INFORMAL POLL OF OTHER GA PLTS I'M ACQUAINTED WITH AND WHO ARE HIGHLY SAFETY CONSCIOUS REASSURES MY FEELING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT FAC SEEKING TO MAINTAIN RIGID PROC AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY. I'VE HAD CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN MUCH HIGHER DENSITY AIRSPACE, AND I FEEL THE HANDLING IN SOUTH FLORIDA HAS BEEN THE EXCEPTION TO THE NORMALLY COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE I'VE RECEIVED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATES THAT HE HAD ABOUT :45 TO :50 MINUTES OF FUEL REMAINING. THE MINIMUM FUEL STATE TO ATC WAS NOT EXACTLY CORRECT. HE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NOT CERTAIN OF THE AMOUNT WHILE HE WAS AIRBORNE. HE WAS RELUCTANT TO REPROGRAM HIS LORAN C NAV INSTRUMENT FOR THE VECTORS SO THIS WAS HIS ONE MAJOR REASON FOR HIS NOT WANTING TO ACCEPT TRACON VECTORS. HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CTLRS AT THIS TRACON IS NOT THE BEST THAT COULD BE HOPED FOR. A SPECIAL LETTER IS AWAITING HIS ATTN. HE BELIEVES IT IS IN REGARD TO NOT COMPLYING WITH APCH CTLR'S VECTORS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.