Narrative:

I filed an IFR flight plan for a flight from ft smith, ar to corsicana, tx. Took off VMC as cleared, but initial climb was in IMC at 1100'. I had advised the tower prior to departure that less than 500 FPM climb would be maintained (due to gross weight and high density altitude). Was initially told to intercept airway on course. While in IMC, I was advised of VFR traffic and told to turn to 200 degree (toward hills and mountains). I was soon told that VFR traffic was no longer a factor. I advised departure control that I understood traffic was no longer a factor and that I was resuming normal navigation. There was no response to this transmission from departure control. I began to turn to an intercepting heading for the airway I had been previously advised to join. Soon the controller gets on the radio and says fly 200 degree and not to turn until advised to do so because of another aircraft (a commuter airliner) which was on a back course localizer approach to ft smith. I repeatedly asked the controller what the minimum vectoring altitude was as I turned back to 200 degree in IMC. He finally admitted the MVA was 2500'. I was less than 1800' MSL during this whole sequence. Is it ATC policy to endanger the lives of general aviation pilots and passenger to vector them towards high terrain in IMC below the MVA for the expeditious flow of commuter airline traffic? A better solution would have been to hold me on the ground until the commuter landed or have the commuter enter a brief holding pattern so no potential conflict would have existed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT WAS VECTORED TOWARD HIGHER TERRAIN BELOW THE MINIMUM VECTORING ALT.

Narrative: I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN FOR A FLT FROM FT SMITH, AR TO CORSICANA, TX. TOOK OFF VMC AS CLRED, BUT INITIAL CLIMB WAS IN IMC AT 1100'. I HAD ADVISED THE TWR PRIOR TO DEP THAT LESS THAN 500 FPM CLIMB WOULD BE MAINTAINED (DUE TO GROSS WEIGHT AND HIGH DENSITY ALT). WAS INITIALLY TOLD TO INTERCEPT AIRWAY ON COURSE. WHILE IN IMC, I WAS ADVISED OF VFR TFC AND TOLD TO TURN TO 200 DEG (TOWARD HILLS AND MOUNTAINS). I WAS SOON TOLD THAT VFR TFC WAS NO LONGER A FACTOR. I ADVISED DEP CTL THAT I UNDERSTOOD TFC WAS NO LONGER A FACTOR AND THAT I WAS RESUMING NORMAL NAVIGATION. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THIS XMISSION FROM DEP CTL. I BEGAN TO TURN TO AN INTERCEPTING HDG FOR THE AIRWAY I HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED TO JOIN. SOON THE CTLR GETS ON THE RADIO AND SAYS FLY 200 DEG AND NOT TO TURN UNTIL ADVISED TO DO SO BECAUSE OF ANOTHER ACFT (A COMMUTER AIRLINER) WHICH WAS ON A BACK COURSE LOC APCH TO FT SMITH. I REPEATEDLY ASKED THE CTLR WHAT THE MINIMUM VECTORING ALT WAS AS I TURNED BACK TO 200 DEG IN IMC. HE FINALLY ADMITTED THE MVA WAS 2500'. I WAS LESS THAN 1800' MSL DURING THIS WHOLE SEQUENCE. IS IT ATC POLICY TO ENDANGER THE LIVES OF GENERAL AVIATION PLTS AND PAX TO VECTOR THEM TOWARDS HIGH TERRAIN IN IMC BELOW THE MVA FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS FLOW OF COMMUTER AIRLINE TFC? A BETTER SOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HOLD ME ON THE GND UNTIL THE COMMUTER LANDED OR HAVE THE COMMUTER ENTER A BRIEF HOLDING PATTERN SO NO POTENTIAL CONFLICT WOULD HAVE EXISTED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.