Narrative:

I was on an IFR flight plan in cruise from bowman field to pontiac airport on a 030 degree heading at 9000 ft. Significant convective activity was present to the northeast; east; southeast; and south. To the west and southwest cumulus clouds were building in typical summer midwest fashion. Approximately 50 DME southwest of cvg VOR; ATC began issuing vectors for traffic avoidance. At first they issued a descent to 7000 ft. With scattered to broken cumulus present; plus turbulence I told ATC I was unable to comply due to weather. A descent to a lower altitude would have been uncomfortable at the least and hazardous at the most for myself and my three passenger. As an alternate I informed ATC I could accept an off course vector. The controller came back with an easterly heading. With a solid line of convective activity from the southwest to the northeast; this too was unacceptable. I told the controller a left turn would keep me clear of the WX and he said 'fine; turn left to a heading of 160 degrees.' I've had some off-course vectors before; but never 230 degrees and certainly not into convective activity. I informed him I could not accept this and he became panicky stating 'you're gonna crash into another airplane.' I calmly replied 'nobody is going to crash into anybody.' visibility in the direction of the traffic (northwest) was unrestricted. I was never able to visually acquire any traffic and there was no loss of separation or safety issue. As far as the latter is concerned; the same cannot be said had I accepted the inane vectors to fly through the thunderstorms. I have read too many accident reports that state 'witnesses observed aircraft falling from sky minus wings' and the like. Contributing factors include: the convective activity in and around the approach and departure corridors surrounding cvg; frequency congestion leading to partial transmissions and/or replies; and most significantly; the relative inexperience of some of the radar controllers in this sector. Anyone who has been doing this for any amount of time recognizes a rookie and makes allowances for these pilots/controllers. Perhaps it is a lack of appreciation of operations around significant meteorological events; or the inability of ATC to 'see' the weather. In any case; I would be lax in my pilot-in-command responsibilities if I allowed ATC to put my passenger and aircraft in a situation where there was a great probability of grave danger. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: pilot stated that he would not have flown his aircraft into that particular weather even if his cargo was freight; much less humans. The FAA has not communicated with him and he stated that if one could listen to the communications tape there would be interesting ATC data about the vector and his response.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C310 PLT REFUSED AN ATC TFC VECTOR BECAUSE THE TRACK WOULD HAVE PLACED HIM IN SEVERE WX.

Narrative: I WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN IN CRUISE FROM BOWMAN FIELD TO PONTIAC ARPT ON A 030 DEG HDG AT 9000 FT. SIGNIFICANT CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY WAS PRESENT TO THE NE; E; SE; AND S. TO THE W AND SW CUMULUS CLOUDS WERE BUILDING IN TYPICAL SUMMER MIDWEST FASHION. APPROX 50 DME SW OF CVG VOR; ATC BEGAN ISSUING VECTORS FOR TFC AVOIDANCE. AT FIRST THEY ISSUED A DESCENT TO 7000 FT. WITH SCATTERED TO BROKEN CUMULUS PRESENT; PLUS TURB I TOLD ATC I WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY DUE TO WEATHER. A DESCENT TO A LOWER ALT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE AT THE LEAST AND HAZARDOUS AT THE MOST FOR MYSELF AND MY THREE PAX. AS AN ALTERNATE I INFORMED ATC I COULD ACCEPT AN OFF COURSE VECTOR. THE CTLR CAME BACK WITH AN EASTERLY HDG. WITH A SOLID LINE OF CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY FROM THE SW TO THE NE; THIS TOO WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I TOLD THE CTLR A L TURN WOULD KEEP ME CLR OF THE WX AND HE SAID 'FINE; TURN L TO A HDG OF 160 DEGS.' I'VE HAD SOME OFF-COURSE VECTORS BEFORE; BUT NEVER 230 DEGS AND CERTAINLY NOT INTO CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY. I INFORMED HIM I COULD NOT ACCEPT THIS AND HE BECAME PANICKY STATING 'YOU'RE GONNA CRASH INTO ANOTHER AIRPLANE.' I CALMLY REPLIED 'NOBODY IS GOING TO CRASH INTO ANYBODY.' VISIBILITY IN THE DIRECTION OF THE TFC (NW) WAS UNRESTRICTED. I WAS NEVER ABLE TO VISUALLY ACQUIRE ANY TFC AND THERE WAS NO LOSS OF SEPARATION OR SAFETY ISSUE. AS FAR AS THE LATTER IS CONCERNED; THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID HAD I ACCEPTED THE INANE VECTORS TO FLY THROUGH THE THUNDERSTORMS. I HAVE READ TOO MANY ACCIDENT RPTS THAT STATE 'WITNESSES OBSERVED ACFT FALLING FROM SKY MINUS WINGS' AND THE LIKE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDE: THE CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY IN AND AROUND THE APCH AND DEP CORRIDORS SURROUNDING CVG; FREQUENCY CONGESTION LEADING TO PARTIAL TRANSMISSIONS AND/OR REPLIES; AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY; THE RELATIVE INEXPERIENCE OF SOME OF THE RADAR CTLRS IN THIS SECTOR. ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME RECOGNIZES A ROOKIE AND MAKES ALLOWANCES FOR THESE PLTS/CTLRS. PERHAPS IT IS A LACK OF APPRECIATION OF OPS AROUND SIGNIFICANT METEOROLOGICAL EVENTS; OR THE INABILITY OF ATC TO 'SEE' THE WEATHER. IN ANY CASE; I WOULD BE LAX IN MY PLT-IN-COMMAND RESPONSIBILITIES IF I ALLOWED ATC TO PUT MY PAX AND ACFT IN A SIT WHERE THERE WAS A GREAT PROBABILITY OF GRAVE DANGER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: PLT STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE FLOWN HIS ACFT INTO THAT PARTICULAR WEATHER EVEN IF HIS CARGO WAS FREIGHT; MUCH LESS HUMANS. THE FAA HAS NOT COMMUNICATED WITH HIM AND HE STATED THAT IF ONE COULD LISTEN TO THE COMMUNICATIONS TAPE THERE WOULD BE INTERESTING ATC DATA ABOUT THE VECTOR AND HIS RESPONSE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.