Narrative:

Myself (PIC) and another INS rated pilot were going to fly aircraft X on a series of INS approachs. Starting with the ILS 19R sna, followed by the ILS 30 lgb, ending with the VOR-a ful. The request was made for a series of INS approachs, starting with the ILS 19R sna. A squawk was issued, followed by radar identify, a heading and altitude assignment. We were vectored across the localizer 3 times so faster traffic could land first. During this time I stated that the next approach request was the ILS 30 lgb. That request was acknowledged and we were thanked. When we finally turned onto the localizer we were cleared for the approach and told to, 'advise when cancelling IFR.' having flown that approach at least 40 times that seemed a bit unusual, but nothing was said. When instructed, contact with the tower was made. The tower personnel were very busy with time critical aircraft, so not much was exchanged. After a low approach on runway centerline, we were given a new heading, altitude and requested to maintain VFR and contact departure. With a rapidly approaching cloud deck at 1200' MSL. Knowing I did not cancel my IFR, and that it could not be cancelled by sna tower, I did not believe I needed to maintain VFR. After contacting coast, departure traffic was pointed out. I responded by, 'negative contact, we are IMC.' the controller then became angry when I told her we were on IFR and that we did not cancel IFR. She immediately gave us a vector out to sea at 2000' MSL. When I requested, 'when can we expect vectors back to the lgb localizer?', she responded by requesting when she could expect our IFR cancellation. In summary, I believe there were misunderstandings on both our parts, but that's no way for an FAA air traffic controller to act. Supplemental information from acn 139331: a companion (cfii) and I had decided to do a # of practice INS approachs. We decided on the sna ILS runway 19R and the lbg ILS runway 30. We contacted coast approach and advised him that we wanted to do a # of approachs listing the above. The controller acknowledged. Prior to reaching 2000' we entered scattered clouds. The controller got very angry and advised, 'you were supposed to maintain VFR.' my companion responded, 'we never cancelled our IFR flight plan.' she (controller) told us to stand by while she checked with the tower. She became very upset and vindictive. We asked for a vector or higher (out of IMC). We could see large aircraft overhead into sna. She ignored us a couple times and then replied, 'you'll get a vector when you advise VFR.' we couldn't advise VFR as we were in IFR conditions. She kept us on that same heading over the ocean. That wasn't the place or time for the controllers' emotions to come in. The WX was dangerous and she treated us that way to make a point, not considering our safety (IMC conditions, low level, over water).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT X ENTERED IMC AFTER ATCT LCL CTLR ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO MAINTAIN VFR. PLT DEVIATION.

Narrative: MYSELF (PIC) AND ANOTHER INS RATED PLT WERE GOING TO FLY ACFT X ON A SERIES OF INS APCHS. STARTING WITH THE ILS 19R SNA, FOLLOWED BY THE ILS 30 LGB, ENDING WITH THE VOR-A FUL. THE REQUEST WAS MADE FOR A SERIES OF INS APCHS, STARTING WITH THE ILS 19R SNA. A SQUAWK WAS ISSUED, FOLLOWED BY RADAR IDENT, A HDG AND ALT ASSIGNMENT. WE WERE VECTORED ACROSS THE LOC 3 TIMES SO FASTER TFC COULD LAND FIRST. DURING THIS TIME I STATED THAT THE NEXT APCH REQUEST WAS THE ILS 30 LGB. THAT REQUEST WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND WE WERE THANKED. WHEN WE FINALLY TURNED ONTO THE LOC WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH AND TOLD TO, 'ADVISE WHEN CANCELLING IFR.' HAVING FLOWN THAT APCH AT LEAST 40 TIMES THAT SEEMED A BIT UNUSUAL, BUT NOTHING WAS SAID. WHEN INSTRUCTED, CONTACT WITH THE TWR WAS MADE. THE TWR PERSONNEL WERE VERY BUSY WITH TIME CRITICAL ACFT, SO NOT MUCH WAS EXCHANGED. AFTER A LOW APCH ON RWY CENTERLINE, WE WERE GIVEN A NEW HDG, ALT AND REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN VFR AND CONTACT DEP. WITH A RAPIDLY APCHING CLOUD DECK AT 1200' MSL. KNOWING I DID NOT CANCEL MY IFR, AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE CANCELLED BY SNA TWR, I DID NOT BELIEVE I NEEDED TO MAINTAIN VFR. AFTER CONTACTING COAST, DEP TFC WAS POINTED OUT. I RESPONDED BY, 'NEGATIVE CONTACT, WE ARE IMC.' THE CTLR THEN BECAME ANGRY WHEN I TOLD HER WE WERE ON IFR AND THAT WE DID NOT CANCEL IFR. SHE IMMEDIATELY GAVE US A VECTOR OUT TO SEA AT 2000' MSL. WHEN I REQUESTED, 'WHEN CAN WE EXPECT VECTORS BACK TO THE LGB LOC?', SHE RESPONDED BY REQUESTING WHEN SHE COULD EXPECT OUR IFR CANCELLATION. IN SUMMARY, I BELIEVE THERE WERE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ON BOTH OUR PARTS, BUT THAT'S NO WAY FOR AN FAA AIR TFC CTLR TO ACT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 139331: A COMPANION (CFII) AND I HAD DECIDED TO DO A # OF PRACTICE INS APCHS. WE DECIDED ON THE SNA ILS RWY 19R AND THE LBG ILS RWY 30. WE CONTACTED COAST APCH AND ADVISED HIM THAT WE WANTED TO DO A # OF APCHS LISTING THE ABOVE. THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED. PRIOR TO REACHING 2000' WE ENTERED SCATTERED CLOUDS. THE CTLR GOT VERY ANGRY AND ADVISED, 'YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN VFR.' MY COMPANION RESPONDED, 'WE NEVER CANCELLED OUR IFR FLT PLAN.' SHE (CTLR) TOLD US TO STAND BY WHILE SHE CHKED WITH THE TWR. SHE BECAME VERY UPSET AND VINDICTIVE. WE ASKED FOR A VECTOR OR HIGHER (OUT OF IMC). WE COULD SEE LARGE ACFT OVERHEAD INTO SNA. SHE IGNORED US A COUPLE TIMES AND THEN REPLIED, 'YOU'LL GET A VECTOR WHEN YOU ADVISE VFR.' WE COULDN'T ADVISE VFR AS WE WERE IN IFR CONDITIONS. SHE KEPT US ON THAT SAME HDG OVER THE OCEAN. THAT WASN'T THE PLACE OR TIME FOR THE CTLRS' EMOTIONS TO COME IN. THE WX WAS DANGEROUS AND SHE TREATED US THAT WAY TO MAKE A POINT, NOT CONSIDERING OUR SAFETY (IMC CONDITIONS, LOW LEVEL, OVER WATER).

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.