Narrative:

I was the so/flight engineer on this particular flight, but was able to hear all the radio xmissions involved. While being vectored by msp approach for a landing on msp runway 11, the controller was directive in nature, and did not recognize or acknowledge our need to deviate from his instructions. While being vectored to downwind the controller asked for our flight to turn to heading 330 degrees. When the first officer (PNF) replied that due to a thunderstorm/buildup we were unable to turn to that heading, the controller directed us again to turn to 330 degrees. The first officer again replied that we were unable due to WX, but that we could turn to 310 degrees and possibly further toward the desired heading in 3-5 mi. The controller again assigned us a heading of 330 degrees to which we replied 'unable.' the controller then assigned us a different heading and altitude which we complied with, resulting in a landing at msp. My concern over this event focuses on the lack of communication in class B airspace. The controller's voice increased in assertiveness with each radio transmission, but since he never acknowledged our response xmissions, we were faced with the choices of: flying into a level 3-4 thunderstorm cell, or ignoring/not complying with ATC and flying into the conflict that the msp controller was trying his hardest to get us to avoid. A busy traffic area and the aforementioned WX are contributing factors to this event, but not an excuse for improper/incomplete aircraft and ATC coordination. Supplemental information from acn 346398: we said we were unable at this time due to a cell and that we could only give him a heading of 315 degrees. The controller said nothing to us for the next 2 mins while we flew a heading of 315 degrees. The controller then said he was taking us out of sequence and that we can expect another 20 mi on the downwind. 10 seconds later he said he found a slot for us and turned us on the base leg. The approach and landing was normal. I realize that approach controllers have a tough job, but this guy was very uncooperative. He never offered us any options. If he would have come back a third time, I would have declared an emergency. Is this what ATC wants us to do?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC. HDG TRACK POS DEV DUE TO TSTM ACTIVITY. ATC APCH CTLR THOUGHT BY FLC TO BE NON RESPONSIVE TO SIT.

Narrative: I WAS THE SO/FE ON THIS PARTICULAR FLT, BUT WAS ABLE TO HEAR ALL THE RADIO XMISSIONS INVOLVED. WHILE BEING VECTORED BY MSP APCH FOR A LNDG ON MSP RWY 11, THE CTLR WAS DIRECTIVE IN NATURE, AND DID NOT RECOGNIZE OR ACKNOWLEDGE OUR NEED TO DEVIATE FROM HIS INSTRUCTIONS. WHILE BEING VECTORED TO DOWNWIND THE CTLR ASKED FOR OUR FLT TO TURN TO HDG 330 DEGS. WHEN THE FO (PNF) REPLIED THAT DUE TO A TSTM/BUILDUP WE WERE UNABLE TO TURN TO THAT HDG, THE CTLR DIRECTED US AGAIN TO TURN TO 330 DEGS. THE FO AGAIN REPLIED THAT WE WERE UNABLE DUE TO WX, BUT THAT WE COULD TURN TO 310 DEGS AND POSSIBLY FURTHER TOWARD THE DESIRED HDG IN 3-5 MI. THE CTLR AGAIN ASSIGNED US A HDG OF 330 DEGS TO WHICH WE REPLIED 'UNABLE.' THE CTLR THEN ASSIGNED US A DIFFERENT HDG AND ALT WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH, RESULTING IN A LNDG AT MSP. MY CONCERN OVER THIS EVENT FOCUSES ON THE LACK OF COM IN CLASS B AIRSPACE. THE CTLR'S VOICE INCREASED IN ASSERTIVENESS WITH EACH RADIO XMISSION, BUT SINCE HE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED OUR RESPONSE XMISSIONS, WE WERE FACED WITH THE CHOICES OF: FLYING INTO A LEVEL 3-4 TSTM CELL, OR IGNORING/NOT COMPLYING WITH ATC AND FLYING INTO THE CONFLICT THAT THE MSP CTLR WAS TRYING HIS HARDEST TO GET US TO AVOID. A BUSY TFC AREA AND THE AFOREMENTIONED WX ARE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS EVENT, BUT NOT AN EXCUSE FOR IMPROPER/INCOMPLETE ACFT AND ATC COORD. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 346398: WE SAID WE WERE UNABLE AT THIS TIME DUE TO A CELL AND THAT WE COULD ONLY GIVE HIM A HDG OF 315 DEGS. THE CTLR SAID NOTHING TO US FOR THE NEXT 2 MINS WHILE WE FLEW A HDG OF 315 DEGS. THE CTLR THEN SAID HE WAS TAKING US OUT OF SEQUENCE AND THAT WE CAN EXPECT ANOTHER 20 MI ON THE DOWNWIND. 10 SECONDS LATER HE SAID HE FOUND A SLOT FOR US AND TURNED US ON THE BASE LEG. THE APCH AND LNDG WAS NORMAL. I REALIZE THAT APCH CTLRS HAVE A TOUGH JOB, BUT THIS GUY WAS VERY UNCOOPERATIVE. HE NEVER OFFERED US ANY OPTIONS. IF HE WOULD HAVE COME BACK A THIRD TIME, I WOULD HAVE DECLARED AN EMER. IS THIS WHAT ATC WANTS US TO DO?

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.