Narrative:

During a round-robin IFR cross country training flight at night; I made the decision to cancel IFR while midway through our second leg. Center was advising us of moderate to extreme precipitation along our route of flight. Our aircraft was equipped with a storm scope and we were able to see the cumulus clouds ahead as the moonlight shone around it. There were no signs of lightning visually or on the storm scope; so I made the decision to continue underneath the weather center was depicting.not wanting to get involved with even the mere possibility of embedded convective weather; and knowing from our first leg that the cloud bases were between 2;500 and 3;000 feet I elected to cancel IFR; descend below our minimum enroute altitude (MEA) to 3;000 feet and continue receiving flight following from center. We would not have been able to remain IFR at 3;000 feet due to the MEA and center's minimum IFR altitude in this area. We would then descend to 2;500 feet to maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements.center transferred us to approach; and shortly thereafter; we had an inadvertent encounter with IMC at 2;500 feet. I informed the approach controller that we would need to pick up IFR again; and he advised us to standby because he needed to call center for permission to make that change; as we were still not inside the approach airspace boundary. About 2 minutes later; we popped out of the cloud and were back in VFR conditions. I cancelled the request to pick up IFR. The controller acknowledged that; advising us that center wouldn't pick up his landline call and therefore he would probably not have been able to issue the clearance for another several miles when we entered his boundary.this speaks to a larger issue about staffing at center and TRACON. It seems [in the evening] both facilities staff with a lower-than-acceptable number of controllers. This makes it hard to receive otherwise simple services like changing a VFR aircraft to IFR status. We were already 'in the NAS' from our previous IFR clearance; squawking our NAS flight plan code; and yet the approach controller couldn't get center to pick up a simple call to request permission to change us back to IFR. Insofar as I'm concerned; approach and center should be staffed just as well at night as both seem to be staffed during the day. In most cases I hear more traffic flying with these two facilities at night than I do during the day. I fly at all hours of the day and night and find the most hectic hours [in the latter half of the evening]; when one controller will be combined on multiple sectors and frequencies.I accept responsibility for the inadvertent IMC encounter. I elected to remain in IMC rather than descend out of the cloud thinking we would be able to switch back to an IFR clearance without a problem. The fact that it was night time contributed to my decision to remain at 2;500 feet rather than descend lower. Had we continued to be unable to receive a new IFR clearance; I would have descended out of the cloud and back into VFR conditions. We exited the cloud and were back in VFR conditions before that option crossed my mind.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A General Aviation pilot reported canceling IFR then entering IMC weather without obtaining a new IFR clearance in a timely manner. The reporter indicated that the delay was due to staffing issues from ATC.

Narrative: During a round-robin IFR cross country training flight at night; I made the decision to cancel IFR while midway through our second leg. Center was advising us of moderate to extreme precipitation along our route of flight. Our aircraft was equipped with a storm scope and we were able to see the cumulus clouds ahead as the moonlight shone around it. There were no signs of lightning visually or on the storm scope; so I made the decision to continue underneath the weather Center was depicting.Not wanting to get involved with even the mere possibility of embedded convective weather; and knowing from our first leg that the cloud bases were between 2;500 and 3;000 feet I elected to cancel IFR; descend below our Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA) to 3;000 feet and continue receiving flight following from Center. We would not have been able to remain IFR at 3;000 feet due to the MEA and Center's Minimum IFR Altitude in this area. We would then descend to 2;500 feet to maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements.Center transferred us to Approach; and shortly thereafter; we had an inadvertent encounter with IMC at 2;500 feet. I informed the Approach controller that we would need to pick up IFR again; and he advised us to standby because he needed to call Center for permission to make that change; as we were still not inside the Approach airspace boundary. About 2 minutes later; we popped out of the cloud and were back in VFR conditions. I cancelled the request to pick up IFR. The controller acknowledged that; advising us that Center wouldn't pick up his landline call and therefore he would probably not have been able to issue the clearance for another several miles when we entered his boundary.This speaks to a larger issue about staffing at Center and TRACON. It seems [in the evening] both facilities staff with a lower-than-acceptable number of controllers. This makes it hard to receive otherwise simple services like changing a VFR aircraft to IFR status. We were already 'in the NAS' from our previous IFR clearance; squawking our NAS flight plan code; and yet the Approach controller couldn't get Center to pick up a simple call to request permission to change us back to IFR. Insofar as I'm concerned; Approach and Center should be staffed just as well at night as both seem to be staffed during the day. In most cases I hear more traffic flying with these two facilities at night than I do during the day. I fly at all hours of the day and night and find the most hectic hours [in the latter half of the evening]; when one controller will be combined on multiple sectors and frequencies.I accept responsibility for the inadvertent IMC encounter. I elected to remain in IMC rather than descend out of the cloud thinking we would be able to switch back to an IFR clearance without a problem. The fact that it was night time contributed to my decision to remain at 2;500 feet rather than descend lower. Had we continued to be unable to receive a new IFR clearance; I would have descended out of the cloud and back into VFR conditions. We exited the cloud and were back in VFR conditions before that option crossed my mind.

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.