Narrative:

Visibility was 3-5 miles in rain throughout the area. There are 2 situations which occurred on the same approach control frequency. First: I departed VFR and heard another aircraft requesting an IFR clearance. The controller apparently did not have anything on file and after several questions; instructed them to call flight service to file an IFR flight plan. In marginal VFR conditions this is dangerous. The controller should have been able to enter a flight plan to allow the pilot to concentrate on flying the airplane instead of compounding the communications requirement and requiring a call to FSS. Second: the same controller began to issue a reroute for a MOA and instead issued me a direct route when I received an IFR clearance. When she discovered it was still active I was assigned a 210 heading and told to 'expect a reroute'. I responded that I would expect direct zzzzz intersection (which would put me clear of the MOA). Several minutes later she said she 'hadn't forgotten about me' and I remained on the 210 heading. I never received an amended clearance. I was; however; instructed to maintain 5000 feet (I filed for 4000 feet because the outside air temperature was 38 F and I was concerned about ice accumulation the entire time) which I did. The subsequent controller instructed me to contact center when the following exchange occurred: me: 'we're still on the 210 heading. Should we proceed direct zzzzz?' TRACON: 'you were cleared direct zzzzz.'me: 'we were not; but we'll go there now. Say again the frequency for center.'TRACON: no reply. Several attempts later over several minutes with still no reply; I was about 10 miles north of ZZZ so I looked at the approach plate to determine a center frequency for the area. The controller there instructed me to return to TRACON frequency. I told them I had been trying TRACON but would try again. I changed back to TRACON and was given the frequency again. Just after checking in with center; I heard someone on 121.5 transmit the correct frequency for me again. I responded that I had gotten the correct frequency and thanked them.corrective actions:first: unnecessarily instructing aircraft to call FSS to file flight plans is dangerous and has been fatal. The controller should immediately be instructed how to input flight plans to prevent a similar fatal accident.second: several minutes of flying while distracted trying to re-establish communications could have been dangerous for me had I not had an autopilot to maintain heading and altitude. While I realize not all transmissions are heard or clear; it appeared I was being ignored as retaliation for correcting the controller. This obviously has no place in aviation. While it may have seemed like a routine frequency change; the combination of that distraction along with the concern for icing at the new altitude was quite a bit of increased workload for me. Familiarization with GA aircraft would be excellent training for controllers and should be a required; or at least encouraged; part of the training (and recurrent training) program.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The pilot overheard a Controller tell another aircraft requesting an IFR clearance to contact Flight Service Station. The pilot thinks the Controller working the sector should have issued the IFR clearance to the aircraft instead of having them contact FSS. In addition; there was a communication problem between the pilot and the same Controller. The pilot could not get the Controller to acknowledge their transmissions. The reporter felt the Controller was intentionally ignoring him.

Narrative: Visibility was 3-5 miles in rain throughout the area. There are 2 situations which occurred on the same approach control frequency. First: I departed VFR and heard another aircraft requesting an IFR clearance. The controller apparently did not have anything on file and after several questions; instructed them to call Flight Service to file an IFR flight plan. In marginal VFR conditions this is dangerous. The controller should have been able to enter a flight plan to allow the pilot to concentrate on flying the airplane instead of compounding the communications requirement and requiring a call to FSS. Second: The same controller began to issue a reroute for a MOA and instead issued me a direct route when I received an IFR clearance. When she discovered it was still active I was assigned a 210 heading and told to 'expect a reroute'. I responded that I would expect direct ZZZZZ intersection (which would put me clear of the MOA). Several minutes later she said she 'hadn't forgotten about me' and I remained on the 210 heading. I never received an amended clearance. I was; however; instructed to maintain 5000 feet (I filed for 4000 feet because the outside air temperature was 38 F and I was concerned about ice accumulation the entire time) which I did. The subsequent controller instructed me to contact Center when the following exchange occurred: Me: 'We're still on the 210 heading. Should we proceed direct ZZZZZ?' TRACON: 'You were cleared direct ZZZZZ.'Me: 'We were not; but we'll go there now. Say again the frequency for Center.'TRACON: no reply. Several attempts later over several minutes with still no reply; I was about 10 miles North of ZZZ so I looked at the approach plate to determine a Center frequency for the area. The controller there instructed me to return to TRACON frequency. I told them I had been trying TRACON but would try again. I changed back to TRACON and was given the frequency again. Just after checking in with Center; I heard someone on 121.5 transmit the correct frequency for me again. I responded that I had gotten the correct frequency and thanked them.Corrective actions:First: Unnecessarily instructing aircraft to call FSS to file flight plans is dangerous and has been fatal. The controller should immediately be instructed how to input flight plans to prevent a similar fatal accident.Second: Several minutes of flying while distracted trying to re-establish communications could have been dangerous for me had I not had an autopilot to maintain heading and altitude. While I realize not all transmissions are heard or clear; it appeared I was being ignored as retaliation for correcting the controller. This obviously has no place in aviation. While it may have seemed like a routine frequency change; the combination of that distraction along with the concern for icing at the new altitude was quite a bit of increased workload for me. Familiarization with GA aircraft would be excellent training for controllers and should be a required; or at least encouraged; part of the training (and recurrent training) program.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.