Narrative:

Tower opened and I called to resume approach frequencies from TRACON. I was monitoring the frequencies and had heard TRACON switch the BE90 to tower; as soon as I took the frequency. The BE90 calls up 9 NM northwest of [the airport] requesting his IFR clearance to [the main airport] climbing to 100 as final instead of 140 and going direct [the intersection]. I gave him his flight plan; [told him to] squawk XXXX and proceeded to radar identify him at 14 NM northwest; I then gave him a heading of 340 for the MVA's and a climb to 100. Pilot didn't read back; so I did a radio check; and by that time I radar identified him the second time he was clear of my 080 MVA and gave him on course cleared to [the main airport] via direct [the intersection] climb and maintain 100. The only reason I gave the pilot direct [the intersection] was because he said he was direct [the intersection] which caused confusion as to if he got that cleared or if that was a request. I handed him off to center coordinating the new final altitude but did not verbally coordinate the direct [the intersection] routing (I used automation to type in -xx in the scratch pad as well as the 100 as final). My low altitude alarm went off and center called about the BE90 clearing my MVA's or not. I thought he would be outside of my 158 MVA; but he went about 1/4-1/2 mile inside of the north side of that MVA as [TRACON] called me. If a controller is dealing with something that doesn't normally occur (aircraft proceeding direct [the intersection] from; so early in the climb) then they should be more aware that something may not be right and be more adamant about coordinating more carefully or clearing up any confusion that could occur such as why the aircraft was headed direct [the intersection] in the first place. Also if your gut is to give a heading then you should stick with it. And pilots shouldn't say they are direct a fix if it wasn't a clearance that was given to them to eliminate confusion a heading would've been better. Or if the aircraft had gotten his IFR clearance on the ground it would save a lot of unnecessary coordination while he is already enroute especially if there was no apparent reason why they waited to get it in the air. Next time something out of the ordinary happens verify if it's a clearance or a request.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller experienced an MVA infraction when confused regarding a pilot's request for a clearance.

Narrative: Tower opened and I called to resume approach frequencies from TRACON. I was monitoring the frequencies and had heard TRACON switch the BE90 to Tower; as soon as I took the frequency. The BE90 calls up 9 NM northwest of [the airport] requesting his IFR clearance to [the main airport] climbing to 100 as final instead of 140 and going direct [the intersection]. I gave him his flight plan; [told him to] Squawk XXXX and proceeded to RADAR identify him at 14 NM northwest; I then gave him a heading of 340 for the MVA's and a climb to 100. Pilot didn't read back; so I did a radio check; and by that time I RADAR identified him the second time he was clear of my 080 MVA and gave him on course cleared to [the main airport] via direct [the intersection] climb and maintain 100. The only reason I gave the pilot direct [the intersection] was because he said he was direct [the intersection] which caused confusion as to if he got that cleared or if that was a request. I handed him off to Center coordinating the new final altitude but did not verbally coordinate the direct [the intersection] routing (I used automation to type in -XX in the scratch pad as well as the 100 as final). My low altitude alarm went off and Center called about the BE90 clearing my MVA's or not. I thought he would be outside of my 158 MVA; but he went about 1/4-1/2 mile inside of the north side of that MVA as [TRACON] called me. If a Controller is dealing with something that doesn't normally occur (aircraft proceeding direct [the intersection] from; so early in the climb) then they should be more aware that something may not be right and be more adamant about coordinating more carefully or clearing up any confusion that could occur such as why the aircraft was headed direct [the intersection] in the first place. Also if your gut is to give a heading then you should stick with it. And pilots shouldn't say they are direct a fix if it wasn't a clearance that was given to them to eliminate confusion a heading would've been better. Or if the aircraft had gotten his IFR clearance on the ground it would save a lot of unnecessary coordination while he is already enroute especially if there was no apparent reason why they waited to get it in the air. Next time something out of the ordinary happens verify if it's a clearance or a request.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.