Narrative:

En route to pit, abeam cae (columbia, sc), I became aware of, and obtained information from atlanta flight watch, on SIGMET 5GE reference a line of severe thunderstorms in the pit area, tops to FL400 moving southeast at 30 KTS. After several consultations with the dispatcher via ACARS, I requested an alternate routing for WX avoidance based on the recommendations of dispatch, which has real-time radar summary pictures, etc. This reroute request was coordinated through atl ARTCC over 1.5 hours before our ETA touchdown time in pit. The reroute would take us west of pit, around the back side of the line of thunderstorms, over the northwest arrival gate, instead of our original routing over nesto intersection approaching pit from the southeast, directly into the line of severe thunderstorms, between the arrival fix and the airport. Although initially approved by atl ARTCC, cle ARTCC denied this routing shortly thereafter for reasons probably having to do with traffic flow. Safety was cle ARTCC's last consideration, apparently, as I pleaded with atl ARTCC to coordination our alternate requested routing for WX avoidance, safety of flight considerations! But to no avail. Cle ARTCC directed/cleared us via our original routing over nesto intersection with the WX between the airport (pit) and nesto intersection. This required a WX deviation to the west to get around the WX. We landed uneventfully in pit. I'm deeply concerned that a conservative safety-of-flight request, initiated 1.5 hours from landing, was 'blatantly' ignored. 'Safety last' must be the motto of the cle ARTCC. They will also be the first to tell you that their radar is not designed for WX avoidance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he was flying a boeing 737. He stated he was successful in avoiding the thunderstorm activity, but the traffic control system directed him to a point that was in his opinion dangerously close at low altitude. And then, with most of his options exhausted, asked him what he would like to do. He said he didn't call cle center on the telephone to inquire what the reasons for denial were. He said that he suspected LOA's and-or traffic flows and-or a mindset. The analyst suggested he phone, or better yet, visit the center to help remove the bitter taste he says he has in his mouth over the experience. When difficulties like this exist, a better communication will create greater understanding to aid both the pilot and the controller surmount their problems together.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC REQUEST DENIED BY ATC, REROUTING TO AVOID LINE OF TSTMS. ENRTE WX FORECAST.

Narrative: ENRTE TO PIT, ABEAM CAE (COLUMBIA, SC), I BECAME AWARE OF, AND OBTAINED INFO FROM ATLANTA FLT WATCH, ON SIGMET 5GE REF A LINE OF SEVERE TSTMS IN THE PIT AREA, TOPS TO FL400 MOVING SE AT 30 KTS. AFTER SEVERAL CONSULTATIONS WITH THE DISPATCHER VIA ACARS, I REQUESTED AN ALTERNATE ROUTING FOR WX AVOIDANCE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DISPATCH, WHICH HAS REAL-TIME RADAR SUMMARY PICTURES, ETC. THIS REROUTE REQUEST WAS COORDINATED THROUGH ATL ARTCC OVER 1.5 HRS BEFORE OUR ETA TOUCHDOWN TIME IN PIT. THE REROUTE WOULD TAKE US W OF PIT, AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF THE LINE OF TSTMS, OVER THE NW ARR GATE, INSTEAD OF OUR ORIGINAL ROUTING OVER NESTO INTXN APCHING PIT FROM THE SE, DIRECTLY INTO THE LINE OF SEVERE TSTMS, BTWN THE ARR FIX AND THE ARPT. ALTHOUGH INITIALLY APPROVED BY ATL ARTCC, CLE ARTCC DENIED THIS ROUTING SHORTLY THEREAFTER FOR REASONS PROBABLY HAVING TO DO WITH TFC FLOW. SAFETY WAS CLE ARTCC'S LAST CONSIDERATION, APPARENTLY, AS I PLEADED WITH ATL ARTCC TO COORD OUR ALTERNATE REQUESTED ROUTING FOR WX AVOIDANCE, SAFETY OF FLT CONSIDERATIONS! BUT TO NO AVAIL. CLE ARTCC DIRECTED/CLRED US VIA OUR ORIGINAL ROUTING OVER NESTO INTXN WITH THE WX BTWN THE ARPT (PIT) AND NESTO INTXN. THIS REQUIRED A WX DEV TO THE W TO GET AROUND THE WX. WE LANDED UNEVENTFULLY IN PIT. I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT A CONSERVATIVE SAFETY-OF-FLT REQUEST, INITIATED 1.5 HRS FROM LNDG, WAS 'BLATANTLY' IGNORED. 'SAFETY LAST' MUST BE THE MOTTO OF THE CLE ARTCC. THEY WILL ALSO BE THE FIRST TO TELL YOU THAT THEIR RADAR IS NOT DESIGNED FOR WX AVOIDANCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED HE WAS FLYING A BOEING 737. HE STATED HE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN AVOIDING THE TSTM ACTIVITY, BUT THE TFC CTL SYS DIRECTED HIM TO A POINT THAT WAS IN HIS OPINION DANGEROUSLY CLOSE AT LOW ALT. AND THEN, WITH MOST OF HIS OPTIONS EXHAUSTED, ASKED HIM WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO. HE SAID HE DIDN'T CALL CLE CTR ON THE TELEPHONE TO INQUIRE WHAT THE REASONS FOR DENIAL WERE. HE SAID THAT HE SUSPECTED LOA'S AND-OR TFC FLOWS AND-OR A MINDSET. THE ANALYST SUGGESTED HE PHONE, OR BETTER YET, VISIT THE CTR TO HELP REMOVE THE BITTER TASTE HE SAYS HE HAS IN HIS MOUTH OVER THE EXPERIENCE. WHEN DIFFICULTIES LIKE THIS EXIST, A BETTER COM WILL CREATE GREATER UNDERSTANDING TO AID BOTH THE PLT AND THE CTLR SURMOUNT THEIR PROBLEMS TOGETHER.

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.