Narrative:

We were conducting a part 91 passenger flight. Due to significant convective activity and associated turbulence in the southwestern us we; along with other aircraft in the vicinity were experiencing light to moderate continuous turbulence; as well as thunderstorm activity along our route. In an effort to adequately avoid the thunderstorms as well as find smoother air we requested and received a block altitude of FL450-470. Shortly thereafter the issuing controller asked us if we were able to maintain FL470; as there were many aircraft deviating and looking to climb to avoid weather. We climbed to FL470 to accommodate the controller's request and cancelled the block altitude.two sectors later... (Where our problems begin). While still in cruise at FL470 we were handed off to another denver center controller. We had just passed about 25 miles south of the last of the significant thunderstorms. We were is relatively smooth air; with light wave activity from the associated storms when the controller instructs us to descend to FL450. Being downwind of the storm activity; we were hesitant to descend and requested a vector to remain at altitude and to accommodate what we assumed was conflicting traffic. The controller then informed us that there was no traffic; but we were at the wrong altitude for direction of flight and had to descend. We found this a little ridiculous and began to argue our case with the controller who's only response was that we couldn't know the flight conditions at FL450 because we were not there and we had to descend to see if meteorological conditions then warranted our request for FL470.we acquiesced to the controller's request; began a descent and immediately entered into light increasing to moderate turbulence. The report did not satisfy the controller who reaffirmed that since we still not leveled at FL450 we could not yet return to FL470. Eventually leveling at FL450; in continuous moderate turbulence we were allowed to return to FL470 for the remainder of our flight.it bothers me that a controller working in airspace known for its hazardous weather would be so willing to disregard the reports from a flight crew in his airspace as to the current conditions; as well as ignore their requests for some reprieve to escape them. My only conclusion is that new controllers aren't receiving adequate training in meteorology as it pertains to aviation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An aircraft at FL470 avoiding weather with no traffic was told to descend to FL450 for proper direction of flight. The pilots argued to remain at FL470 in smooth air; but the request was denied. In turbulence; at FL450; the crew was allowed to return to FL470.

Narrative: We were conducting a Part 91 passenger flight. Due to significant convective activity and associated turbulence in the southwestern U.S. we; along with other aircraft in the vicinity were experiencing light to moderate continuous turbulence; as well as thunderstorm activity along our route. In an effort to adequately avoid the thunderstorms as well as find smoother air we requested and received a block altitude of FL450-470. Shortly thereafter the issuing controller asked us if we were able to maintain FL470; as there were many aircraft deviating and looking to climb to avoid weather. We climbed to FL470 to accommodate the controller's request and cancelled the block altitude.Two sectors later... (where our problems begin). While still in cruise at FL470 we were handed off to another Denver center controller. We had just passed about 25 miles south of the last of the significant thunderstorms. We were is relatively smooth air; with light wave activity from the associated storms when the controller instructs us to descend to FL450. Being downwind of the storm activity; we were hesitant to descend and requested a vector to remain at altitude and to accommodate what we assumed was conflicting traffic. The controller then informed us that there was no traffic; but we were at the wrong altitude for direction of flight and had to descend. We found this a little ridiculous and began to argue our case with the controller who's only response was that we couldn't know the flight conditions at FL450 because we were not there and we had to descend to see if meteorological conditions then warranted our request for FL470.We acquiesced to the controller's request; began a descent and immediately entered into light increasing to moderate turbulence. The report did not satisfy the controller who reaffirmed that since we still not leveled at FL450 we could not yet return to FL470. Eventually leveling at FL450; in continuous moderate turbulence we were allowed to return to FL470 for the remainder of our flight.It bothers me that a controller working in airspace known for its hazardous weather would be so willing to disregard the reports from a flight crew in his airspace as to the current conditions; as well as ignore their requests for some reprieve to escape them. My only conclusion is that new controllers aren't receiving adequate training in meteorology as it pertains to aviation.

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.