Narrative:

Filed IFR flight plan at sts for sts to myf on 8/sun/90 after 3 changes in assigned altitude (8000', 4000', 5000' and 7000') over the next 5 mins (I had requested 9000'). I found myself in a solid cloud layer, as had been predicted in my prior briefing, in moderately severe turbulence, making control of direction and altitude very difficult. Requested higher altitude several times, each time denied, and a new clearance with changes given on 2 occasions. Informed controller of problems. She lectured me on maintaining 8000' assigned altitude. After 2 warnings about altitude (I was at 84000') she gave me a new clearance and cleared me to 9000'. At that point 'supervisor' came on radio and lectured me on maintaining assigned altitude of 8000'. I replied that I was now cleared to 9000' and was finally out of the clouds and turbulence. I have never encountered such nasty, uncaring and unsafe controllers in all of my yrs in the air. Fighting to maintain control of my aircraft at a time when airspace above and below my assigned altitude was in clear, calm air. Informing the controller of the actual conditions, I would have expected radar vectors, a better altitude assignment or anything other than that which I received, which endangered my aircraft as well as my 1 passenger and myself. I recognize that the airspace in and around the oak control zone had heavy traffic conditions at the time of this episode, but an additional error (by me and the controller) was an incorrect readback of the revised clearance given to me under difficult conditions, which was confirmed as 'readback correct' by the controller. Thus my passenger and I were searching for a nonexistent chkpoint intersection, while trying to fly the aircraft at a level 9000' in clouds and turbulence. A little help from the controller with a vector or a new altitude (as I said before) would have avoided the entire incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA ALT DEVIATION EXCURSION FROM CLRNC ALT.

Narrative: FILED IFR FLT PLAN AT STS FOR STS TO MYF ON 8/SUN/90 AFTER 3 CHANGES IN ASSIGNED ALT (8000', 4000', 5000' AND 7000') OVER THE NEXT 5 MINS (I HAD REQUESTED 9000'). I FOUND MYSELF IN A SOLID CLOUD LAYER, AS HAD BEEN PREDICTED IN MY PRIOR BRIEFING, IN MODERATELY SEVERE TURB, MAKING CTL OF DIRECTION AND ALT VERY DIFFICULT. REQUESTED HIGHER ALT SEVERAL TIMES, EACH TIME DENIED, AND A NEW CLRNC WITH CHANGES GIVEN ON 2 OCCASIONS. INFORMED CTLR OF PROBS. SHE LECTURED ME ON MAINTAINING 8000' ASSIGNED ALT. AFTER 2 WARNINGS ABOUT ALT (I WAS AT 84000') SHE GAVE ME A NEW CLRNC AND CLRED ME TO 9000'. AT THAT POINT 'SUPVR' CAME ON RADIO AND LECTURED ME ON MAINTAINING ASSIGNED ALT OF 8000'. I REPLIED THAT I WAS NOW CLRED TO 9000' AND WAS FINALLY OUT OF THE CLOUDS AND TURB. I HAVE NEVER ENCOUNTERED SUCH NASTY, UNCARING AND UNSAFE CTLRS IN ALL OF MY YRS IN THE AIR. FIGHTING TO MAINTAIN CTL OF MY ACFT AT A TIME WHEN AIRSPACE ABOVE AND BELOW MY ASSIGNED ALT WAS IN CLR, CALM AIR. INFORMING THE CTLR OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED RADAR VECTORS, A BETTER ALT ASSIGNMENT OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WHICH I RECEIVED, WHICH ENDANGERED MY ACFT AS WELL AS MY 1 PAX AND MYSELF. I RECOGNIZE THAT THE AIRSPACE IN AND AROUND THE OAK CTL ZONE HAD HVY TFC CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THIS EPISODE, BUT AN ADDITIONAL ERROR (BY ME AND THE CTLR) WAS AN INCORRECT READBACK OF THE REVISED CLRNC GIVEN TO ME UNDER DIFFICULT CONDITIONS, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED AS 'READBACK CORRECT' BY THE CTLR. THUS MY PAX AND I WERE SEARCHING FOR A NONEXISTENT CHKPOINT INTXN, WHILE TRYING TO FLY THE ACFT AT A LEVEL 9000' IN CLOUDS AND TURB. A LITTLE HELP FROM THE CTLR WITH A VECTOR OR A NEW ALT (AS I SAID BEFORE) WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE ENTIRE INCIDENT.

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.