Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were conducting a Part 91 passenger flight. Due to significant convective activity and associated turbulence in the southwestern U.S. we; along with other aircraft in the vicinity were experiencing light to moderate continuous turbulence; as well as thunderstorm activity along our route. In an effort to adequately avoid the thunderstorms as well as find smoother air we requested and received a block altitude of FL450-470. Shortly thereafter the issuing controller asked us if we were able to maintain FL470; as there were many aircraft deviating and looking to climb to avoid weather. We climbed to FL470 to accommodate the controller's request and cancelled the block altitude.Two sectors later... (where our problems begin). While still in cruise at FL470 we were handed off to another Denver center controller. We had just passed about 25 miles south of the last of the significant thunderstorms. We were is relatively smooth air; with light wave activity from the associated storms when the controller instructs us to descend to FL450. Being downwind of the storm activity; we were hesitant to descend and requested a vector to remain at altitude and to accommodate what we assumed was conflicting traffic. The controller then informed us that there was no traffic; but we were at the wrong altitude for direction of flight and had to descend. We found this a little ridiculous and began to argue our case with the controller who's only response was that we couldn't know the flight conditions at FL450 because we were not there and we had to descend to see if meteorological conditions then warranted our request for FL470.We acquiesced to the controller's request; began a descent and immediately entered into light increasing to moderate turbulence. The report did not satisfy the controller who reaffirmed that since we still not leveled at FL450 we could not yet return to FL470. Eventually leveling at FL450; in continuous moderate turbulence we were allowed to return to FL470 for the remainder of our flight.It bothers me that a controller working in airspace known for its hazardous weather would be so willing to disregard the reports from a flight crew in his airspace as to the current conditions; as well as ignore their requests for some reprieve to escape them. My only conclusion is that new controllers aren't receiving adequate training in meteorology as it pertains to aviation.




Synopsis: An aircraft at FL470 avoiding weather with no traffic was told to descend to FL450 for proper direction of flight. The pilots argued to remain at FL470 in smooth air; but the request was denied. In turbulence; at FL450; the crew was allowed to return to FL470.