Narrative:

IFR clearance (given no ground control) was so indirect (306 NM) that had I been delayed en route for just 5-10 mins I would have suffered fuel exhaustion before reaching my destination, orh! The clearance did not allow for the legally required 45 mins reserve, not to mention travel to my filed alternate, bed! The perfectly reasonable route I filed was 186 NM. At the time, while I realized the clearance was longer than I filed, I did not know it was beyond the range of my aircraft! Had it been IMC I might have accepted the clearance and paid the ultimate price! It was only when I got home that I took the time to measure the route completely (I won't make that mistake again). Back to the story... After analyzing the clearance, I called ground and said, 'that clearance is too indirect, please get me a more direct one.' he refused with, 'it's the preferred route.' I then asked for a VFR clearance through the (ny) TCA direct jfk at 5500', outbnd on 055 degree right direct orh. He refused. I departed VFR, arranged aforementioned clearance with approach, and transited a very empty TCA. Later I phoned ny approach control (thinking that they issued the original clearance) and explained that issuing clrncs that exceed the range of an aircraft will cause fuel exhaustion and fatal crashes sooner or later (the avianca crash comes to mind). I suggested they issue more direct clrncs. They said that clrncs are issued west/O regard for aircraft type or capabilities. They promised to investigate. The next day they called and said that phl approach is responsible for issuing clrncs out of trenton and that the standard route to worcester area had been changed. The new route is about 216 NM, a reasonable route.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT'S COMPLAINT OF ATC ROUTING ON AN IFR REQUEST THAT WAS TOO LONG FOR HIS ACFT'S ENDURANCE AND ATC'S REFUSAL TO ACCOMMODATE HIM ON A SHORTER ROUTE.

Narrative: IFR CLRNC (GIVEN NO GND CTL) WAS SO INDIRECT (306 NM) THAT HAD I BEEN DELAYED ENRTE FOR JUST 5-10 MINS I WOULD HAVE SUFFERED FUEL EXHAUSTION BEFORE REACHING MY DEST, ORH! THE CLRNC DID NOT ALLOW FOR THE LEGALLY REQUIRED 45 MINS RESERVE, NOT TO MENTION TRAVEL TO MY FILED ALTERNATE, BED! THE PERFECTLY REASONABLE RTE I FILED WAS 186 NM. AT THE TIME, WHILE I REALIZED THE CLRNC WAS LONGER THAN I FILED, I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS BEYOND THE RANGE OF MY ACFT! HAD IT BEEN IMC I MIGHT HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC AND PAID THE ULTIMATE PRICE! IT WAS ONLY WHEN I GOT HOME THAT I TOOK THE TIME TO MEASURE THE RTE COMPLETELY (I WON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN). BACK TO THE STORY... AFTER ANALYZING THE CLRNC, I CALLED GND AND SAID, 'THAT CLRNC IS TOO INDIRECT, PLEASE GET ME A MORE DIRECT ONE.' HE REFUSED WITH, 'IT'S THE PREFERRED RTE.' I THEN ASKED FOR A VFR CLRNC THROUGH THE (NY) TCA DIRECT JFK AT 5500', OUTBND ON 055 DEG R DIRECT ORH. HE REFUSED. I DEPARTED VFR, ARRANGED AFOREMENTIONED CLRNC WITH APCH, AND TRANSITED A VERY EMPTY TCA. LATER I PHONED NY APCH CTL (THINKING THAT THEY ISSUED THE ORIGINAL CLRNC) AND EXPLAINED THAT ISSUING CLRNCS THAT EXCEED THE RANGE OF AN ACFT WILL CAUSE FUEL EXHAUSTION AND FATAL CRASHES SOONER OR LATER (THE AVIANCA CRASH COMES TO MIND). I SUGGESTED THEY ISSUE MORE DIRECT CLRNCS. THEY SAID THAT CLRNCS ARE ISSUED W/O REGARD FOR ACFT TYPE OR CAPABILITIES. THEY PROMISED TO INVESTIGATE. THE NEXT DAY THEY CALLED AND SAID THAT PHL APCH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUING CLRNCS OUT OF TRENTON AND THAT THE STANDARD RTE TO WORCESTER AREA HAD BEEN CHANGED. THE NEW RTE IS ABOUT 216 NM, A REASONABLE RTE.

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.