Narrative:

Planned flight would leave only 1 hour reserve less ATC vectoring. 50 percent chance I'll need to use my alternate. After receiving my filed clearance I contacted tower for release. I was sent back to ground to receive an amended clearance. It was much longer and via lake henry (my flight was lns to orh). I explained that I could not accept the amended routing due to fuel requirements and requested my original routing or similar and offered to fly any altitude from 5000 to 9000. I then received said requested clearance with altitude of 5000 and departed into solid IMC. 5 mins into the flight I was asked if I could accept a new routing at phl approach's request. My copilot, whose instrument rating is only a few weeks old, could not find the route on the chart. I asked her to fly and I studied the chart. I discovered that the first victor airway did not exist and told the controller. When I looked up, I found that the other pilot had allowed a 30-40 degree heading deviation and an altitude deviation. I took the stick and the controller gave the correct routing. This new routing was a compromise between what I filed and the awful lake henry. After debating, I accepted it. The flight was uneventful for a while until I asked mcguire approach (nj) for a left turn to deviate around a cell I was painting (unexpectedly) 10 NM ahead. They refused my request. I then transmitted 'I'm turning left or right in 10 seconds, do you have a preference?' I've never had to do this before but I'll be damned if I'm gonna fly through a thunderstorm just to make a controller's life easier. He suggested right and I did. He then gave me a vector in this direction. A min or so later, he gave me a vector which would have taken me through the cell. I stated 'unable due to cell.' he asked me to advise him when I can return to the original course. I did so when past the cell. Later, ny approach asked me to descend to 3000. I was at 5000 and considered 3000 an unusual altitude for IFR traffic over nyc that wasn't landing nyc. I surmised that, if I had descended I then would have been sent back up to 5000, wasting fuel in the process. I responded with request staying at 5000.' the controller said, 'stay at 5.' subsequently, ny told me to climb to 7000. I acknowledged and started my climb. As I passed 6200 ny told me to 'level at 6000, if you are above 6000 then return to 6000.' I said,'descending to 6000.' a few mins later, ny told me to climb to 7000 which I did. I was handed off to ny departure. Just before ny departure handed me off to bradley approach they gave me a vector with a heading between 45 and 90 degrees off my route. When I made my initial call to bradley approach I said, 'level 7000 heading XXX.' he said, in a hostile voice, 'fly routing' or similar, implying that I should not have been flying heading XXX even though it was assigned to me. I decided against telling the controller that I was assigned XXX by the last controller. Shortly after this, the controller claimed in a hostile voice that we were off course. I claimed that we seemed to be on course, verified that our CDI was centered and the LORAN was confirming we were close to the airway centerline. I then suspected that perhaps the problem was that we should still have been on the bdr VOR and switched back to it. It showed about 1/2 scale deflection, well within specification. As I was within 10 NM of bdr I was well within the 4 NM between the airway centerline and its outer edge! At this point, the controller gave me an absurd 90 degree heading change to 'get me back on course.' the CDI centered after perhaps a min and I continued on course. I admitted my copilot's mistake to the controller and apologized. Later, I was told that I had traffic, a commuter, my altitude. I told bradley approach that I had traffic (who did not have me). I was told to maintain visual separation. I changed heading to the right to avoid it as it seemed to be coming at me. After changing my heading by, maybe, 30-40 degrees, I considered reporting this to the controller. At this point, the controller gave me a new vector, possibly telling me that the traffic was no longer a factor. I discussed this with my copilot who said my original heading would have kept me out of trouble. This begs the question, then, why would the controller have asked me tomaintain visual separation if there would not be a conflict and we were both flying vors or vectors? I was then handed off to the last bradley approach controller and the tower, who treated me fine. WX was 100 and 1 and the approach lights were out for upgrade. I did the ILS and spotted the runway edge lights at 300 AGL but a bit of scud started to block the runway. Fortunately, the runway was not completely blocked and the scud was passed allowing me to land. If the scud was slightly worse, I would have had to miss and probably go to my alternate 30 NM away. This possibility was why I was guarding my fuel. (I was monitoring my alternate to make sure it stayed well above minima). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: analyst called reporter to inform him that ATC does not have nor take the time to pass along personality information regarding a pilot. Also to inform that controllers do not deliberately turn aircraft into cells, their radar is not as precise as that aboard the aircraft. He acknowledged both aspects. He has followed up with AOPA and the regional representative of FAA. Seemed to get nowhere. It was suggested that he use the pilot association he is a member of to follow through further if this is a serious problem. He feels it is a hazard to safety. Will continue his followup. Since he was able to get 1 preferred routing changed, he may be successful with this as well.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA CLRED ON A RTE WHICH WOULD HAVE ADDED 45 MINS TO FLT. NOT ENOUGH FUEL IF ALTERNATE NEEDED. WX DEV AS WELL.

Narrative: PLANNED FLT WOULD LEAVE ONLY 1 HR RESERVE LESS ATC VECTORING. 50 PERCENT CHANCE I'LL NEED TO USE MY ALTERNATE. AFTER RECEIVING MY FILED CLRNC I CONTACTED TWR FOR RELEASE. I WAS SENT BACK TO GND TO RECEIVE AN AMENDED CLRNC. IT WAS MUCH LONGER AND VIA LAKE HENRY (MY FLT WAS LNS TO ORH). I EXPLAINED THAT I COULD NOT ACCEPT THE AMENDED ROUTING DUE TO FUEL REQUIREMENTS AND REQUESTED MY ORIGINAL ROUTING OR SIMILAR AND OFFERED TO FLY ANY ALT FROM 5000 TO 9000. I THEN RECEIVED SAID REQUESTED CLRNC WITH ALT OF 5000 AND DEPARTED INTO SOLID IMC. 5 MINS INTO THE FLT I WAS ASKED IF I COULD ACCEPT A NEW ROUTING AT PHL APCH'S REQUEST. MY COPLT, WHOSE INST RATING IS ONLY A FEW WKS OLD, COULD NOT FIND THE RTE ON THE CHART. I ASKED HER TO FLY AND I STUDIED THE CHART. I DISCOVERED THAT THE FIRST VICTOR AIRWAY DID NOT EXIST AND TOLD THE CTLR. WHEN I LOOKED UP, I FOUND THAT THE OTHER PLT HAD ALLOWED A 30-40 DEG HDG DEV AND AN ALTDEV. I TOOK THE STICK AND THE CTLR GAVE THE CORRECT ROUTING. THIS NEW ROUTING WAS A COMPROMISE BTWN WHAT I FILED AND THE AWFUL LAKE HENRY. AFTER DEBATING, I ACCEPTED IT. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL FOR A WHILE UNTIL I ASKED MCGUIRE APCH (NJ) FOR A L TURN TO DEVIATE AROUND A CELL I WAS PAINTING (UNEXPECTEDLY) 10 NM AHEAD. THEY REFUSED MY REQUEST. I THEN XMITTED 'I'M TURNING L OR R IN 10 SECONDS, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE?' I'VE NEVER HAD TO DO THIS BEFORE BUT I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'M GONNA FLY THROUGH A TSTM JUST TO MAKE A CTLR'S LIFE EASIER. HE SUGGESTED R AND I DID. HE THEN GAVE ME A VECTOR IN THIS DIRECTION. A MIN OR SO LATER, HE GAVE ME A VECTOR WHICH WOULD HAVE TAKEN ME THROUGH THE CELL. I STATED 'UNABLE DUE TO CELL.' HE ASKED ME TO ADVISE HIM WHEN I CAN RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL COURSE. I DID SO WHEN PAST THE CELL. LATER, NY APCH ASKED ME TO DSND TO 3000. I WAS AT 5000 AND CONSIDERED 3000 AN UNUSUAL ALT FOR IFR TFC OVER NYC THAT WASN'T LNDG NYC. I SURMISED THAT, IF I HAD DSNDED I THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT BACK UP TO 5000, WASTING FUEL IN THE PROCESS. I RESPONDED WITH REQUEST STAYING AT 5000.' THE CTLR SAID, 'STAY AT 5.' SUBSEQUENTLY, NY TOLD ME TO CLB TO 7000. I ACKNOWLEDGED AND STARTED MY CLB. AS I PASSED 6200 NY TOLD ME TO 'LEVEL AT 6000, IF YOU ARE ABOVE 6000 THEN RETURN TO 6000.' I SAID,'DSNDING TO 6000.' A FEW MINS LATER, NY TOLD ME TO CLB TO 7000 WHICH I DID. I WAS HANDED OFF TO NY DEP. JUST BEFORE NY DEP HANDED ME OFF TO BRADLEY APCH THEY GAVE ME A VECTOR WITH A HDG BTWN 45 AND 90 DEGS OFF MY RTE. WHEN I MADE MY INITIAL CALL TO BRADLEY APCH I SAID, 'LEVEL 7000 HDG XXX.' HE SAID, IN A HOSTILE VOICE, 'FLY ROUTING' OR SIMILAR, IMPLYING THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLYING HDG XXX EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ASSIGNED TO ME. I DECIDED AGAINST TELLING THE CTLR THAT I WAS ASSIGNED XXX BY THE LAST CTLR. SHORTLY AFTER THIS, THE CTLR CLAIMED IN A HOSTILE VOICE THAT WE WERE OFF COURSE. I CLAIMED THAT WE SEEMED TO BE ON COURSE, VERIFIED THAT OUR CDI WAS CTRED AND THE LORAN WAS CONFIRMING WE WERE CLOSE TO THE AIRWAY CTRLINE. I THEN SUSPECTED THAT PERHAPS THE PROB WAS THAT WE SHOULD STILL HAVE BEEN ON THE BDR VOR AND SWITCHED BACK TO IT. IT SHOWED ABOUT 1/2 SCALE DEFLECTION, WELL WITHIN SPEC. AS I WAS WITHIN 10 NM OF BDR I WAS WELL WITHIN THE 4 NM BTWN THE AIRWAY CTRLINE AND ITS OUTER EDGE! AT THIS POINT, THE CTLR GAVE ME AN ABSURD 90 DEG HDG CHANGE TO 'GET ME BACK ON COURSE.' THE CDI CTRED AFTER PERHAPS A MIN AND I CONTINUED ON COURSE. I ADMITTED MY COPLT'S MISTAKE TO THE CTLR AND APOLOGIZED. LATER, I WAS TOLD THAT I HAD TFC, A COMMUTER, MY ALT. I TOLD BRADLEY APCH THAT I HAD TFC (WHO DID NOT HAVE ME). I WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. I CHANGED HDG TO THE R TO AVOID IT AS IT SEEMED TO BE COMING AT ME. AFTER CHANGING MY HDG BY, MAYBE, 30-40 DEGS, I CONSIDERED RPTING THIS TO THE CTLR. AT THIS POINT, THE CTLR GAVE ME A NEW VECTOR, POSSIBLY TELLING ME THAT THE TFC WAS NO LONGER A FACTOR. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH MY COPLT WHO SAID MY ORIGINAL HDG WOULD HAVE KEPT ME OUT OF TROUBLE. THIS BEGS THE QUESTION, THEN, WHY WOULD THE CTLR HAVE ASKED ME TOMAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION IF THERE WOULD NOT BE A CONFLICT AND WE WERE BOTH FLYING VORS OR VECTORS? I WAS THEN HANDED OFF TO THE LAST BRADLEY APCH CTLR AND THE TWR, WHO TREATED ME FINE. WX WAS 100 AND 1 AND THE APCH LIGHTS WERE OUT FOR UPGRADE. I DID THE ILS AND SPOTTED THE RWY EDGE LIGHTS AT 300 AGL BUT A BIT OF SCUD STARTED TO BLOCK THE RWY. FORTUNATELY, THE RWY WAS NOT COMPLETELY BLOCKED AND THE SCUD WAS PASSED ALLOWING ME TO LAND. IF THE SCUD WAS SLIGHTLY WORSE, I WOULD HAVE HAD TO MISS AND PROBABLY GO TO MY ALTERNATE 30 NM AWAY. THIS POSSIBILITY WAS WHY I WAS GUARDING MY FUEL. (I WAS MONITORING MY ALTERNATE TO MAKE SURE IT STAYED WELL ABOVE MINIMA). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST CALLED RPTR TO INFORM HIM THAT ATC DOES NOT HAVE NOR TAKE THE TIME TO PASS ALONG PERSONALITY INFO REGARDING A PLT. ALSO TO INFORM THAT CTLRS DO NOT DELIBERATELY TURN ACFT INTO CELLS, THEIR RADAR IS NOT AS PRECISE AS THAT ABOARD THE ACFT. HE ACKNOWLEDGED BOTH ASPECTS. HE HAS FOLLOWED UP WITH AOPA AND THE REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF FAA. SEEMED TO GET NOWHERE. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT HE USE THE PLT ASSOCIATION HE IS A MEMBER OF TO FOLLOW THROUGH FURTHER IF THIS IS A SERIOUS PROB. HE FEELS IT IS A HAZARD TO SAFETY. WILL CONTINUE HIS FOLLOWUP. SINCE HE WAS ABLE TO GET 1 PREFERRED ROUTING CHANGED, HE MAY BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THIS AS WELL.

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.