Narrative:

Prior to departing tul, ok, I noticed a NOTAM describing a tfr that was to be in effect in the cleveland area at the time of my proposed arrival. Being on an IFR flight plan, I was not concerned with the tfr itself, but on other effects that it might have on ATC in cleveland. I called the local FSS in tulsa and questioned if there might be any other restrs at my destination. I discovered that the tfr was in effect 3 NM around a point just 3 NM southeast of my intended destination of cleveland's burke lakefront airport. I asked if he showed any further NOTAMS such as airport closure for burke lakefront. He did not, and was kind enough to give me a telephone number for the cleveland FSS. I called them to ask if they were aware of any further restrs in the area. The briefer seemed to share my concern for airport closure due to the proximity of the tfr. He called the tower at burke lakefront and was told that the airport was expected to be remaining open and that we could probably expect an arrival from the north and east. Upon nearing cleveland, I tuned in the bkl ATIS. ATIS information stated that the tfr was in effect from XA25-XB55 and that all aircraft should avoid flying through the tfr except in an emergency. Upon contacting cleveland approach, we were vectored eastbound, about 10 mi south of the airport. We were then given a northwest heading toward the airport at 2600 ft, which was directly into the tfr. I questioned the heading and the fact that it was leading us into the tfr. The controller stated that he believed the tfr had expired. He sounded hesitant, and I was concerned about what the ATIS information had said. I asked him to check into it, and requested an easterly heading until he found out. There was silence on the radio, and we continued on the northwest heading that he had issued. He returned, stating that because we were on an IFR flight plan that we were exempt from the tfr. I explained what the ATIS had said. He seemed aggravated with us and was quick to issue the visual approach and the frequency change. I was troubled by this incident. I felt that I made very effort to obtain all information for the flight, yet still was left with conflicting information from ATC. And although we maintained our assigned heading and altitude throughout, it would appear that we may have flown contrary to the ATIS broadcast at bkl tower.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C525 CREW REFUSED TO BE VECTORED INTO AN ACTIVE TFR AREA.

Narrative: PRIOR TO DEPARTING TUL, OK, I NOTICED A NOTAM DESCRIBING A TFR THAT WAS TO BE IN EFFECT IN THE CLEVELAND AREA AT THE TIME OF MY PROPOSED ARR. BEING ON AN IFR FLT PLAN, I WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE TFR ITSELF, BUT ON OTHER EFFECTS THAT IT MIGHT HAVE ON ATC IN CLEVELAND. I CALLED THE LCL FSS IN TULSA AND QUESTIONED IF THERE MIGHT BE ANY OTHER RESTRS AT MY DEST. I DISCOVERED THAT THE TFR WAS IN EFFECT 3 NM AROUND A POINT JUST 3 NM SE OF MY INTENDED DEST OF CLEVELAND'S BURKE LAKEFRONT ARPT. I ASKED IF HE SHOWED ANY FURTHER NOTAMS SUCH AS ARPT CLOSURE FOR BURKE LAKEFRONT. HE DID NOT, AND WAS KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ME A TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE CLEVELAND FSS. I CALLED THEM TO ASK IF THEY WERE AWARE OF ANY FURTHER RESTRS IN THE AREA. THE BRIEFER SEEMED TO SHARE MY CONCERN FOR ARPT CLOSURE DUE TO THE PROX OF THE TFR. HE CALLED THE TWR AT BURKE LAKEFRONT AND WAS TOLD THAT THE ARPT WAS EXPECTED TO BE REMAINING OPEN AND THAT WE COULD PROBABLY EXPECT AN ARRIVAL FROM THE N AND E. UPON NEARING CLEVELAND, I TUNED IN THE BKL ATIS. ATIS INFO STATED THAT THE TFR WAS IN EFFECT FROM XA25-XB55 AND THAT ALL ACFT SHOULD AVOID FLYING THROUGH THE TFR EXCEPT IN AN EMER. UPON CONTACTING CLEVELAND APCH, WE WERE VECTORED EBOUND, ABOUT 10 MI S OF THE ARPT. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A NW HDG TOWARD THE ARPT AT 2600 FT, WHICH WAS DIRECTLY INTO THE TFR. I QUESTIONED THE HDG AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS LEADING US INTO THE TFR. THE CTLR STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THE TFR HAD EXPIRED. HE SOUNDED HESITANT, AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE ATIS INFO HAD SAID. I ASKED HIM TO CHK INTO IT, AND REQUESTED AN EASTERLY HDG UNTIL HE FOUND OUT. THERE WAS SILENCE ON THE RADIO, AND WE CONTINUED ON THE NW HDG THAT HE HAD ISSUED. HE RETURNED, STATING THAT BECAUSE WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN THAT WE WERE EXEMPT FROM THE TFR. I EXPLAINED WHAT THE ATIS HAD SAID. HE SEEMED AGGRAVATED WITH US AND WAS QUICK TO ISSUE THE VISUAL APCH AND THE FREQ CHANGE. I WAS TROUBLED BY THIS INCIDENT. I FELT THAT I MADE VERY EFFORT TO OBTAIN ALL INFO FOR THE FLT, YET STILL WAS LEFT WITH CONFLICTING INFO FROM ATC. AND ALTHOUGH WE MAINTAINED OUR ASSIGNED HDG AND ALT THROUGHOUT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WE MAY HAVE FLOWN CONTRARY TO THE ATIS BROADCAST AT BKL TWR.

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.