Narrative:

I filed an IFR flight plan with routing direct to the mlb VORTAC; then V3 to vrb; with a requested altitude of 5000 ft. I chose this route to ensure the entire flight would be over land. I believe over water flight in my single engine aircraft is unsafe as my aircraft is not equipped with the survival equipment needed for over water operation. I received my clearance from orlando approach and was cleared as filed; with the exception that the initial assigned altitude was 4000 ft. I was told to expect 5000 ft within 10 minutes. When orlando approach handed me off to miami center I was on course as filed at 4000 ft. Shortly after the handoff miami center issued a heading change to 120 degrees; which I assumed was a temporary heading to avoid traffic. I turned to and maintained the 120 degree heading; which ultimately took me over the coastline and then offshore. When I was approximately two miles offshore and still hadn't received the anticipated heading change back to my original course I called miami center and informed the controller that my aircraft was not equipped with water survival equipment and asked how far offshore the flight would have to continue on this heading. When the controller replied it would be approximately another minute; I did a rough calculation and concluded this would result in the aircraft being beyond gliding distance to shore if I had an engine problem. I called miami center and requested a heading change to 180 degrees; which would have allowed me to parallel the coastline and reduce the risk. This request was refused and the controller stated that he could send the flight over water and I could still glide back. I called the controller again and informed him that for safety of flight the requested heading of 180 degrees was required; and that I intended to turn to 180 degrees. (I later viewed the flight's track on an aviation web site and determined I was more than six miles offshore at this point.) when the controller responded without explanation that I could not fly 180 degrees and needed to maintain the 120 degrees instead; I made multiple requests to speak with a supervisor. The controller refused to let me speak with a supervisor; stating he had more than 24 years experience and knew what he was doing. I then informed the controller I was going to turn to 180 degrees 'for safety of flight' and began the turn. I asked the controller to give me a telephone number for a supervisor; which he also refused to provide. After repeated requests for a number; the controller said it would be waiting for me on the ground. The controller then asked if I was declaring an emergency; to which I replied 'no;' as the deviation was necessary for safety of flight. The controller then stated he was declaring an emergency on the flight's behalf; to which I responded that this was not an emergency; but this was a safety of flight issue. The controller then said I was canceling IFR to which I replied; 'no.' after telling the controller I was not canceling IFR; I heard the controller issue a heading change to another aircraft and refer to 'an uncooperative pilot;' which I assumed referred to me. Shortly after hearing this comment; I told the controller I was canceling IFR. At no time did the controller appear to attempt to resolve my problem; nor did he address the safety of flight issue or explain why the offshore vector may have been necessary. After evaluating the entire episode; I believe the ATC service actually increased the risk of the flight. The controller's refusal to help and his continued badgering led me to eventual cancellation of IFR. Fortunately; the weather was good and I was able to complete the fight VFR. ATC should not vector single engine aircraft offshore; especially after being informed the aircraft is not equipped with water survival equipment. When a pilot informs ATC of a safety of flight issue; the pilot's concerns should be addressed. ATC is not increasing safety of flight when the controller's response is 'I have over 24 years experience. I know what I'm doing.'

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reports being vectored over the ocean by a ZMA controller. When the reporter requests the vector be modified to parallel or return to shore the Controller was unwilling; offering IFR cancellation or an emergency declaration as the only options that will allow a turn. The reporter rejected both options while turning toward shore and eventually canceled IFR.

Narrative: I filed an IFR flight plan with routing direct to the MLB VORTAC; then V3 to VRB; with a requested altitude of 5000 FT. I chose this route to ensure the entire flight would be over land. I believe over water flight in my single engine aircraft is unsafe as my aircraft is not equipped with the survival equipment needed for over water operation. I received my clearance from Orlando Approach and was cleared as filed; with the exception that the initial assigned altitude was 4000 FT. I was told to expect 5000 FT within 10 minutes. When Orlando Approach handed me off to Miami Center I was on course as filed at 4000 FT. Shortly after the handoff Miami Center issued a heading change to 120 degrees; which I assumed was a temporary heading to avoid traffic. I turned to and maintained the 120 degree heading; which ultimately took me over the coastline and then offshore. When I was approximately two miles offshore and still hadn't received the anticipated heading change back to my original course I called Miami Center and informed the Controller that my aircraft was not equipped with water survival equipment and asked how far offshore the flight would have to continue on this heading. When the Controller replied it would be approximately another minute; I did a rough calculation and concluded this would result in the aircraft being beyond gliding distance to shore if I had an engine problem. I called Miami Center and requested a heading change to 180 degrees; which would have allowed me to parallel the coastline and reduce the risk. This request was refused and the Controller stated that he could send the flight over water and I could still glide back. I called the Controller again and informed him that for safety of flight the requested heading of 180 degrees was required; and that I intended to turn to 180 degrees. (I later viewed the flight's track on an aviation web site and determined I was more than six miles offshore at this point.) When the Controller responded without explanation that I could not fly 180 degrees and needed to maintain the 120 degrees instead; I made multiple requests to speak with a Supervisor. The Controller refused to let me speak with a Supervisor; stating he had more than 24 years experience and knew what he was doing. I then informed the Controller I was going to turn to 180 degrees 'for safety of flight' and began the turn. I asked the Controller to give me a telephone number for a Supervisor; which he also refused to provide. After repeated requests for a number; the Controller said it would be waiting for me on the ground. The Controller then asked if I was declaring an emergency; to which I replied 'no;' as the deviation was necessary for safety of flight. The Controller then stated he was declaring an emergency on the flight's behalf; to which I responded that this was not an emergency; but this was a safety of flight issue. The Controller then said I was canceling IFR to which I replied; 'no.' After telling the Controller I was not canceling IFR; I heard the Controller issue a heading change to another aircraft and refer to 'an uncooperative pilot;' which I assumed referred to me. Shortly after hearing this comment; I told the Controller I was canceling IFR. At no time did the Controller appear to attempt to resolve my problem; nor did he address the safety of flight issue or explain why the offshore vector may have been necessary. After evaluating the entire episode; I believe the ATC service actually increased the risk of the flight. The Controller's refusal to help and his continued badgering led me to eventual cancellation of IFR. Fortunately; the weather was good and I was able to complete the fight VFR. ATC should not vector single engine aircraft offshore; especially after being informed the aircraft is not equipped with water survival equipment. When a pilot informs ATC of a safety of flight issue; the pilot's concerns should be addressed. ATC is not increasing safety of flight when the Controller's response is 'I have over 24 years experience. I know what I'm doing.'

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.