Narrative:

Left sacramento executive airport on VFR flight to watsonville, ca. At clearance delivery I gave my plan of flight to sacto VOR and outbnd 165 radial at 5500 and requested flight following. I identified my aircraft as nxxx small aircraft C type. I was assigned code lmno and departed runway 20. After being handed off to stockton approach I kept hearing other planes receiving information about an small aircraft F type which seemed to correspond to my flight path. Just prior to being handed over to oakland center I was addressed as small aircraft F nxxx. I corrected the controller and identified myself as an small aircraft C. About this time I was asked to make an immediate descent because of traffic at 11 O'clock. As I began my dive I saw the traffic above me and to my left and made a diving right turn. Separation was at least 1/8 mi as we passed. I then climbed back to 5500'. Shortly after this I was handed over to ZOA. I was asked to squawk my altitude. After brief confusion in which I set my transponder to 5500 I was asked to again squawk. The conversation went roughly as follows: oak: small aircraft C nxxx squawk altitude. XXX: squawking 5500. Oak: we seem to have some confusion here. Set transponder to read altitude. XXX: I do not have mode C. Oak: I guess we were mistaken, I thought you had mode C. Squawk lmno. At this point I began to wonder what was going on. It was a clear day and my position was east of livermore and the calaveras reservoir heading towards the west side of mt hamilton. Did the controller think I was inside the 30 mi TCA veil? Was I approaching it and was he going to let me blunder in? To be safe I turned on a course of 90 to pass on the east side of mt hamilton before continuing on to watsonville. This seems like a simple situation. No harm done. Why am I upset? Well I guess it comes under the perceptions, judgements and decisions part of your report. 1) I know now that squawk (mode, code, function) is the correct terminology but since everyone refers to 'mode C' might it not be better to change the usage to squawk (mode, code)? 2) while the controller knew I was there he did not know what my equipment or capabilities were. Why did he not tell me the reason for mode C? If he felt I was in or was going to enter airspace where mode C was required, why not just tell me so? It wouldn't have taken any longer. When I am talking to a controller I would like him to advise me of things like that. Obviously the simplest approach is to squawk 1200 and be just another target 'altitude unk'. Personally I utilize flight following as much as possible and want center to know my altitude and intended heading but what I perceive as a growing adversarial relationship between the FAA and general aviation is giving me second thoughts about the wisdom of this approach. 3) the controllers were very busy that afternoon. I was one of the last aircraft accepted for flight following (something I may regret). Obviously there is a need for more controllers to handle the volume of aircraft operating in the san francisco center's coverage area.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA PLT CONFUSED BY ARTCC RADAR CTLR PHRASEOLOGY. WHEN TOLD TO SQUAWK ALT HE SET HIS NON MODE C TRANSPONDER TO ACFT ALT.

Narrative: LEFT SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE ARPT ON VFR FLT TO WATSONVILLE, CA. AT CLRNC DELIVERY I GAVE MY PLAN OF FLT TO SACTO VOR AND OUTBND 165 RADIAL AT 5500 AND REQUESTED FLT FOLLOWING. I IDENTIFIED MY ACFT AS NXXX SMA C TYPE. I WAS ASSIGNED CODE LMNO AND DEPARTED RWY 20. AFTER BEING HANDED OFF TO STOCKTON APCH I KEPT HEARING OTHER PLANES RECEIVING INFO ABOUT AN SMA F TYPE WHICH SEEMED TO CORRESPOND TO MY FLT PATH. JUST PRIOR TO BEING HANDED OVER TO OAKLAND CENTER I WAS ADDRESSED AS SMA F NXXX. I CORRECTED THE CTLR AND IDENTIFIED MYSELF AS AN SMA C. ABOUT THIS TIME I WAS ASKED TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE DSCNT BECAUSE OF TFC AT 11 O'CLOCK. AS I BEGAN MY DIVE I SAW THE TFC ABOVE ME AND TO MY LEFT AND MADE A DIVING RIGHT TURN. SEPARATION WAS AT LEAST 1/8 MI AS WE PASSED. I THEN CLIMBED BACK TO 5500'. SHORTLY AFTER THIS I WAS HANDED OVER TO ZOA. I WAS ASKED TO SQUAWK MY ALT. AFTER BRIEF CONFUSION IN WHICH I SET MY XPONDER TO 5500 I WAS ASKED TO AGAIN SQUAWK. THE CONVERSATION WENT ROUGHLY AS FOLLOWS: OAK: SMA C NXXX SQUAWK ALT. XXX: SQUAWKING 5500. OAK: WE SEEM TO HAVE SOME CONFUSION HERE. SET XPONDER TO READ ALT. XXX: I DO NOT HAVE MODE C. OAK: I GUESS WE WERE MISTAKEN, I THOUGHT YOU HAD MODE C. SQUAWK LMNO. AT THIS POINT I BEGAN TO WONDER WHAT WAS GOING ON. IT WAS A CLEAR DAY AND MY POSITION WAS E OF LIVERMORE AND THE CALAVERAS RESERVOIR HDG TOWARDS THE W SIDE OF MT HAMILTON. DID THE CTLR THINK I WAS INSIDE THE 30 MI TCA VEIL? WAS I APCHING IT AND WAS HE GOING TO LET ME BLUNDER IN? TO BE SAFE I TURNED ON A COURSE OF 90 TO PASS ON THE E SIDE OF MT HAMILTON BEFORE CONTINUING ON TO WATSONVILLE. THIS SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE SITUATION. NO HARM DONE. WHY AM I UPSET? WELL I GUESS IT COMES UNDER THE PERCEPTIONS, JUDGEMENTS AND DECISIONS PART OF YOUR REPORT. 1) I KNOW NOW THAT SQUAWK (MODE, CODE, FUNCTION) IS THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY BUT SINCE EVERYONE REFERS TO 'MODE C' MIGHT IT NOT BE BETTER TO CHANGE THE USAGE TO SQUAWK (MODE, CODE)? 2) WHILE THE CTLR KNEW I WAS THERE HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT MY EQUIPMENT OR CAPABILITIES WERE. WHY DID HE NOT TELL ME THE REASON FOR MODE C? IF HE FELT I WAS IN OR WAS GOING TO ENTER AIRSPACE WHERE MODE C WAS REQUIRED, WHY NOT JUST TELL ME SO? IT WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN ANY LONGER. WHEN I AM TALKING TO A CTLR I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ADVISE ME OF THINGS LIKE THAT. OBVIOUSLY THE SIMPLEST APCH IS TO SQUAWK 1200 AND BE JUST ANOTHER TARGET 'ALT UNK'. PERSONALLY I UTILIZE FLT FOLLOWING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND WANT CENTER TO KNOW MY ALT AND INTENDED HDG BUT WHAT I PERCEIVE AS A GROWING ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FAA AND GENERAL AVIATION IS GIVING ME SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT THE WISDOM OF THIS APCH. 3) THE CTLRS WERE VERY BUSY THAT AFTERNOON. I WAS ONE OF THE LAST ACFT ACCEPTED FOR FLT FOLLOWING (SOMETHING I MAY REGRET). OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE CTLRS TO HANDLE THE VOLUME OF ACFT OPERATING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO CENTER'S COVERAGE AREA.

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.