On initial contact controller told small transport to maintain VFR while actual flying conditions we...

Attributes
ACN	104676
Time
Date	198902
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : mia
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 6000 msl bound upper : 6000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : pbi artcc : zkc
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors enroute airway : mia
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 1200
ASRS Report	104676
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Deviation

Narrative:

Departed vrb southbound for tamiami. Contacted ZMA south of vfb and requested and received VFR flight following at 7500' to tamiami. Later we were switched to palm beach approach. Decided IFR would be better than VFR, so requested IFR from palm beach. Palm beach cleared us to tamiami via radar vectors and told us to descend to 6000' and turn to 270 degrees. Later we were told to turn to 180 degrees and contact mia approach. We were in IMC conditions when we contacted mia approach. Upon contact we were told to maintain VFR. When we reported unable to maintain VFR we were told to climb, descend, turn or whatever was required to maintain VFR. We said we were IFR in IMC and unable to maintain VFR. He said we were VFR, and that palm beach had cancelled our IFR. We said 'negative, negative.' at this point he accepted us back as IFR and the flight concluded uneventfully. This situation was probably the result of the poor interface between approach and center computers. It is likely to recur until approach can easily change flight plans in the center computer. I would guess that our VFR flight plan given to center was never updated by palm beach causing mia approach to see us as VFR.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ON INITIAL CONTACT CTLR TOLD SMT TO MAINTAIN VFR WHILE ACTUAL FLYING CONDITIONS WERE IMC AND ACFT RECEIVED IFR CLRNC FROM PREVIOUS CTLR.

Narrative: DEPARTED VRB SBND FOR TAMIAMI. CONTACTED ZMA S OF VFB AND REQUESTED AND RECEIVED VFR FLT FOLLOWING AT 7500' TO TAMIAMI. LATER WE WERE SWITCHED TO PALM BEACH APCH. DECIDED IFR WOULD BE BETTER THAN VFR, SO REQUESTED IFR FROM PALM BEACH. PALM BEACH CLRED US TO TAMIAMI VIA RADAR VECTORS AND TOLD US TO DSND TO 6000' AND TURN TO 270 DEGS. LATER WE WERE TOLD TO TURN TO 180 DEGS AND CONTACT MIA APCH. WE WERE IN IMC CONDITIONS WHEN WE CONTACTED MIA APCH. UPON CONTACT WE WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN VFR. WHEN WE RPTED UNABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR WE WERE TOLD TO CLB, DSND, TURN OR WHATEVER WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN VFR. WE SAID WE WERE IFR IN IMC AND UNABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR. HE SAID WE WERE VFR, AND THAT PALM BEACH HAD CANCELLED OUR IFR. WE SAID 'NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE.' AT THIS POINT HE ACCEPTED US BACK AS IFR AND THE FLT CONCLUDED UNEVENTFULLY. THIS SITUATION WAS PROBABLY THE RESULT OF THE POOR INTERFACE BTWN APCH AND CENTER COMPUTERS. IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR UNTIL APCH CAN EASILY CHANGE FLT PLANS IN THE CENTER COMPUTER. I WOULD GUESS THAT OUR VFR FLT PLAN GIVEN TO CENTER WAS NEVER UPDATED BY PALM BEACH CAUSING MIA APCH TO SEE US AS VFR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.

On initial contact controller told small transport to maintain VFR while actual flying conditions were IMC and aircraft received IFR clearance from previous controller.