Peter wrote:
On a VFR flight, ATC are entitled to screw you and often do. That is the quid pro quo of VFR deregulation.
The IFR versus VFR routing issues are a side effect of poor airspace design and with well managed airspace (as in the US, in Class E) it is not true – not least because assuming decent weather there’s no need to talk to ATC at all. The assumption that talking to people on the ground is an intrinsic and continuous part of flying an aircraft continues to boggle my mind 
Peter wrote:
On a VFR flight, ATC are entitled to screw you and often do. That is the quid pro quo of VFR deregulation.
I know you know, but that is not quite the case. Outside CAS ATC have absolutely no say in what you do, and indeed you may choose not even to speak to them
ATC refused deviations around the stratus.
According to the picture Peter posted it was VMC 330° around,
That’s going some, given that the camera view is about 120 degrees…
To me this looks like you were higher than most of that stuff on the left and could have avoided entering it with a small course correcion when closer.
Aviathor wrote:
Where did that come from? I did not say any such thing, or I was completely misunderstood.
Sorry, I wrote that from memory on my phone so couldn’t research in length who said what. I was actually referring to @antoinebk ’s post #26.
To me this looks like you were higher than most of that stuff on the left and could have avoided entering it with a small course correcion when closer.
That however is irrelevant because that comment could be made about half the stuff one asks “to avoid” in real IFR. Or one could just fly through it. I can post other videos showing wx to avoid and different people with different size balls can post their views on whether one could have flown through such and such cloud. I suspect most pilots who fly IFR for real would choose to avoid nearly all of it, if there was VMC to one side.
The reason I started this thread is entirely different, obviously.
That’s your opinion. I would, from what I see on that photo, not have asked for an avoidance heading, because there was not really much to avoid. A lot of drama for nothing.
You miss the point entirely…
No, if you had read my comments you would know that I understood your problem. I also agree that the radar controller made some stupid remarks. But in the end, when I saw what you were (obviously) talking about I realized that there never was a problem and it looks like that no discussion with ATC was necessary.
Come on Peter, admit it, you wanted a direct to Bolzano ;-)
(hint: joke!)
ATC didn’t say anything about that however.
Well, when one is flying IFR in the high Alps, in the mid-teen flightlevels, close to the MEA of surrounding airways, and ATC says “Padova will not accept you there and there at this level”, then I think it can be implied that what they mean is that you are at too low a level, no?
I agree though that she could have been more informative on this.
-N0152F110 SFD DCT ROTNO DCT KONAN L607 SUXIM DCT AGBUL DCT OLIVI DCT MND DCT OKIBA DCT ABTAL L173 RIXED DCT ABGAS DCT AMEXO/N0150F120 DCT OSDER DCT ADILO/N0148F130 DCT KTI DCT NIGEB VFR
Note the F130. And I was at FL160.
That however is off the mark. According to your filed flightplan, you planned to cancel IFR whilst still in Austrian airspace. Hence this accepted flightplan does not give you a clue about the IFR minimum altitude in Italian airspace, to the southwest of BRENO.
On request I can spend more time, posting a terrain map with spot elevations.
Also pointless, because, as you know, MVAs don’t only depend on terrain elevations, but also airspace structure, radar coverage etc.
