Narrative:

While on arrival into slc, we were cleared to descent to 9000 ft. I asked the controller if this was a safe altitude 40 NM south of slc VOR and he said yes. As we descended through 9500 ft in IMC our GPWS terrain warning began sounding continuously so we initiated a climb and informed approach we were climbing to 11000 ft. The controller responded that 9000 ft was above MVA and started to give us an 8000 ft crossing restr for our instrument approach to runway 34L. I repeated that we were climbing to 11000 ft in response to our terrain warning. The controller started to question our rate of descent which had been 1000 FPM as if he expected us to disregard the ongoing warning so I told him we were still climbing and would worry about his 8000 crossing restr later. We leveled off at 11000 ft and after being cleared for the approach commenced a descent on the ILS GS. I don't think that this particular controller fully appreciates the effect that the terrain warning has on a flight crew especially at night, under instrument meteorological condition, and in mountainous terrain. The flight continued without further incident. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the controller was correct in saying that they didn't have to climb all the way up to 11000 ft. Pilot just did not feel comfortable leveling off at any lower altitude since he was in an area of mountainous terrain. Had he leveled off at a lower altitude, such as 9000 ft, it would have satisfied all company procedures. Although the controller was asking for a level off at a lower altitude, pilot could sense in the controller's voice, frustration over his higher climb. Pilot mainly feels that the controller does not understand or appreciate what is going through a pilot's mind when a GPWS sounds.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 RECEIVES A GPWS WARNING DURING DSCNT INTO SLC.

Narrative: WHILE ON ARR INTO SLC, WE WERE CLRED TO DSCNT TO 9000 FT. I ASKED THE CTLR IF THIS WAS A SAFE ALT 40 NM S OF SLC VOR AND HE SAID YES. AS WE DSNDED THROUGH 9500 FT IN IMC OUR GPWS TERRAIN WARNING BEGAN SOUNDING CONTINUOUSLY SO WE INITIATED A CLB AND INFORMED APCH WE WERE CLBING TO 11000 FT. THE CTLR RESPONDED THAT 9000 FT WAS ABOVE MVA AND STARTED TO GIVE US AN 8000 FT XING RESTR FOR OUR INST APCH TO RWY 34L. I REPEATED THAT WE WERE CLBING TO 11000 FT IN RESPONSE TO OUR TERRAIN WARNING. THE CTLR STARTED TO QUESTION OUR RATE OF DSCNT WHICH HAD BEEN 1000 FPM AS IF HE EXPECTED US TO DISREGARD THE ONGOING WARNING SO I TOLD HIM WE WERE STILL CLBING AND WOULD WORRY ABOUT HIS 8000 XING RESTR LATER. WE LEVELED OFF AT 11000 FT AND AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH COMMENCED A DSCNT ON THE ILS GS. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR CTLR FULLY APPRECIATES THE EFFECT THAT THE TERRAIN WARNING HAS ON A FLC ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT, UNDER INST METEOROLOGICAL CONDITION, AND IN MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN. THE FLT CONTINUED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE CTLR WAS CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO CLB ALL THE WAY UP TO 11000 FT. PLT JUST DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE LEVELING OFF AT ANY LOWER ALT SINCE HE WAS IN AN AREA OF MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN. HAD HE LEVELED OFF AT A LOWER ALT, SUCH AS 9000 FT, IT WOULD HAVE SATISFIED ALL COMPANY PROCS. ALTHOUGH THE CTLR WAS ASKING FOR A LEVEL OFF AT A LOWER ALT, PLT COULD SENSE IN THE CTLR'S VOICE, FRUSTRATION OVER HIS HIGHER CLB. PLT MAINLY FEELS THAT THE CTLR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OR APPRECIATE WHAT IS GOING THROUGH A PLT'S MIND WHEN A GPWS SOUNDS.

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.