Narrative:

Following VFR departure from afn (jaffrey, nh) contact with ZBW (123.75) was made, as anticipated on flight plan, approximately 1 mi south of afn. Instructions to stand by were issued along with a non VFR squawk. Contact was again initiated 9 mi from afn and again I was instructed to stand by for full route clearance, but I was also told to climb and maintain 4000 and advise when ready to copy. A VFR climb was initiated and I informed the controller that I was ready to copy. Following some confusion a full route clearance was given. I advised center that I had copied the clearance but to please stand by so that I could review the clearance prior to accepting it. On 2 occasions in the past I have been issued clrncs or amended clrncs by ZNY which involved 200 and 300 mi deviations which I could not legally accept for fuel considerations. It has since become routine for me to quickly review the routing prior to accepting the clearance. Given the turbulence, this review took longer than the controller was able to tolerate so she handed me off to bradley approach at an IFR altitude with a non VFR squawk with no clearance. I commented that I understood the new frequency but that I was confused as to whether I was on an instrument clearance yet as I was approaching IMC conditions ahead. I was told that I had been given a clearance and once again instructed to contact bradley approach. On contacting bradley and reviewing my clearance I requested and received permission to read back my clearance. Having received my confirmation, I then requested the bradley altimeter as neither ZBW or bradley had offered this information on initial contact. In summary, I was confused. I was first confused by an IFR altitude assignment which promised to take me from VMC to IMC during which time I was told to stand by. I was confused by the chart scattering turbulent conditions. I was confused when I was told that I had a clearance I had not read back and accepted. Lastly, I would have appreciated standard altimeter setting issuance. In avoiding such a situation I believe that ZBW should resume the practice of instructing aircraft to simply remain VFR and stand by until such time that a proper clearance can be received, reviewed and read back. I think that all contacts to ATC should be accompanied by altimeter setting announcements. I also think that ZNY should consider aircraft type and performance prior to issuing an small aircraft an amendment more suitable for a widebody transport.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT REPORTS CONFUSION IN HIS MIND OVER RECEIVING AN IFR ALT ASSIGNMENT PRIOR TO HIS ACCEPTANCE OF AN IFR CLRNC. POSSIBLE ALT DEVIATION AND VFR IN IMC CONDITIONS.

Narrative: FOLLOWING VFR DEP FROM AFN (JAFFREY, NH) CONTACT WITH ZBW (123.75) WAS MADE, AS ANTICIPATED ON FLT PLAN, APPROX 1 MI S OF AFN. INSTRUCTIONS TO STAND BY WERE ISSUED ALONG WITH A NON VFR SQUAWK. CONTACT WAS AGAIN INITIATED 9 MI FROM AFN AND AGAIN I WAS INSTRUCTED TO STAND BY FOR FULL ROUTE CLRNC, BUT I WAS ALSO TOLD TO CLIMB AND MAINTAIN 4000 AND ADVISE WHEN READY TO COPY. A VFR CLIMB WAS INITIATED AND I INFORMED THE CTLR THAT I WAS READY TO COPY. FOLLOWING SOME CONFUSION A FULL ROUTE CLRNC WAS GIVEN. I ADVISED CENTER THAT I HAD COPIED THE CLRNC BUT TO PLEASE STAND BY SO THAT I COULD REVIEW THE CLRNC PRIOR TO ACCEPTING IT. ON 2 OCCASIONS IN THE PAST I HAVE BEEN ISSUED CLRNCS OR AMENDED CLRNCS BY ZNY WHICH INVOLVED 200 AND 300 MI DEVIATIONS WHICH I COULD NOT LEGALLY ACCEPT FOR FUEL CONSIDERATIONS. IT HAS SINCE BECOME ROUTINE FOR ME TO QUICKLY REVIEW THE ROUTING PRIOR TO ACCEPTING THE CLRNC. GIVEN THE TURBULENCE, THIS REVIEW TOOK LONGER THAN THE CTLR WAS ABLE TO TOLERATE SO SHE HANDED ME OFF TO BRADLEY APCH AT AN IFR ALT WITH A NON VFR SQUAWK WITH NO CLRNC. I COMMENTED THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE NEW FREQ BUT THAT I WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER I WAS ON AN INSTRUMENT CLRNC YET AS I WAS APCHING IMC CONDITIONS AHEAD. I WAS TOLD THAT I HAD BEEN GIVEN A CLRNC AND ONCE AGAIN INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT BRADLEY APCH. ON CONTACTING BRADLEY AND REVIEWING MY CLRNC I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED PERMISSION TO READ BACK MY CLRNC. HAVING RECEIVED MY CONFIRMATION, I THEN REQUESTED THE BRADLEY ALTIMETER AS NEITHER ZBW OR BRADLEY HAD OFFERED THIS INFO ON INITIAL CONTACT. IN SUMMARY, I WAS CONFUSED. I WAS FIRST CONFUSED BY AN IFR ALT ASSIGNMENT WHICH PROMISED TO TAKE ME FROM VMC TO IMC DURING WHICH TIME I WAS TOLD TO STAND BY. I WAS CONFUSED BY THE CHART SCATTERING TURBULENT CONDITIONS. I WAS CONFUSED WHEN I WAS TOLD THAT I HAD A CLRNC I HAD NOT READ BACK AND ACCEPTED. LASTLY, I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED STANDARD ALTIMETER SETTING ISSUANCE. IN AVOIDING SUCH A SITUATION I BELIEVE THAT ZBW SHOULD RESUME THE PRACTICE OF INSTRUCTING ACFT TO SIMPLY REMAIN VFR AND STAND BY UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT A PROPER CLRNC CAN BE RECEIVED, REVIEWED AND READ BACK. I THINK THAT ALL CONTACTS TO ATC SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY ALTIMETER SETTING ANNOUNCEMENTS. I ALSO THINK THAT ZNY SHOULD CONSIDER ACFT TYPE AND PERFORMANCE PRIOR TO ISSUING AN SMA AN AMENDMENT MORE SUITABLE FOR A WDB.

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