Narrative:

Hello. I called up ground and requested flight following services for the following route. Smo vplds vplgp kvny vplwt smo. I asked smo ground if I will be assured flight services and handovers to each waypoint and that ATC knows my route. They acknowledged yes. I received my squawk etc. After departure and routing down towards vplds; I was given an alternate frequency to the original departure frequency. I believe it was socal approach; I can't recall the frequency number. Upon establishing contact with the controller; he immediately and abruptly suspended flight services and told me to contact vny tower to which I did. It was as if I was given the wrong frequency by santa monica. Still enroute to vplds; I established contact with that vny controller and informed them of my route and intentions. These were acknowledged. I then called back to clarify if I should be keeping the squawk as the previous controller did not say squawk VFR nor did they say 'keep the code' as you would expect and I have experienced many times in similar circumstances. The vny controller told me to squawk VFR to which I did immediately. At this point and from my vast VFR flight following experience; [I] felt ATC were 'stressed'. The vny controller was also talking to another similar tail somewhere. They kept calling the similar tail number and that pilot would respond but there was no communication to either myself or the other pilot (I believe was an rv) that there were 2 aircraft on frequency with similar call signs. As I turned towards vplgp from vplds; I believe I contacted the controller again to inform them of my position and altitude and we were headed towards vny. Upon passing vplgp; there was helicopter traffic passing dangerously close to our position. There was no call from the tower to inform us; although I was monitoring closely via the onboard TCAS system and visually. This was another sign to me that ATC was not on their game and something was wrong. I heard some transmission from the vny controller; but it wasn't clear if it was for me or the other similar tail number. At that time; I informed that tower that I have the traffic in sight. I assumed their transmission was to report the traffic that was less than 300 feet away which we had already passed. I continued towards nvy per my route which was communicated to santa monica and again to vny controllers. Approximately 8 miles out; I reported my position and altitude to which now a new controller reacted with surprise and asked my intentions to which I said I had recently declared those to the controller before him on the same frequency and gave them my route once again. He was snarky and requested I turn to cross the 101 and stay on the south side to which I did. Again; I was dismayed with ATC as there was now another controller whom did not seem to have received the handover. The vny controller then came on again asking if I was familiar with the area because I wasn't now on the east side of the 405 freeway and that I was conflicting with arriving traffic to vny and I just continue onwards. I believe he originally said the 101 and not the 405. Anyway; this isn't the pilot deviation issue or why I am filling out the NASA report. It's the backstory to the 'possible deviation'.when I got back to smo; ground told me there may have been a possible pilot deviation and to call burbank tower. I did immediately; I was pissed with how ATC handled me from departure to leaving vny airspace despite my proactive reports; my flight plan; informing two controllers of it etc and to be then met with the mess. On the call with burbank tower; they claimed some things that were alarming. They said 'you were not talking to anyone'. Which I informed them was totally false. They claimed I was asked to transfer to burbank tower which I never heard from any controllerbefore I entered the burbank class C; I was under the impression from the original socal controller who knew my route (or should have) combined with talking to the vny controller; that they were in control of my transition through the burbank class C. Furthermore; I did not hear any conflicting information from the controller I had two way communication with; that my route was an issue; despite it being declared. Furthermore; when I was talking to the 2nd controller on the same frequency at vny; he did not inform me I was not in his airspace when I was in class charlie at the time. I explained the majority of the above to burbank tower on the phone call and apologized that I entered their class C and I wasn't talking to the right folks. I was apologetic. I did also vent I felt it was 'amateur hour' for what should have been a simple flight. In my flying career; I have helped pilots and ATC with mistakes while I was on frequency; I've understood and experienced when ATC becomes over stressed. But the 'dumping' that went on here put me into a situation where I had the impression I was talking to the right people to transition the class C of burbank. I understand at the end of the day; it's my position and responsibility to know that and I should have known that vny was not the controlling ATC for the class C. In fact; I'm not sure even at this moment if they are or they were not. Because it's very common in my flight following experience that a neighboring control enables you to transition an airspace especially when they are aware of your intentions and you are talking to them the whole time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A pilot reported receiving confusing communications instructions from ATC and entered a Class C airspace without approval.

Narrative: Hello. I called up Ground and requested flight following services for the following route. SMO VPLDS VPLGP KVNY VPLWT SMO. I asked SMO Ground if I will be assured flight services and handovers to each waypoint and that ATC knows my route. They acknowledged yes. I received my squawk etc. After departure and routing down towards VPLDS; I was given an alternate frequency to the original departure frequency. I believe it was SoCal Approach; I can't recall the frequency number. Upon establishing contact with the controller; he immediately and abruptly suspended flight services and told me to contact VNY Tower to which I did. It was as if I was given the wrong frequency by Santa Monica. Still enroute to VPLDS; I established contact with that VNY Controller and informed them of my route and intentions. These were acknowledged. I then called back to clarify if I should be keeping the squawk as the previous controller did NOT say squawk VFR nor did they say 'keep the code' as you would expect and I have experienced many times in similar circumstances. The VNY Controller told me to squawk VFR to which I did immediately. At this point and from my vast VFR flight following experience; [I] felt ATC were 'stressed'. The VNY Controller was also talking to another similar tail somewhere. They kept calling the similar tail number and that pilot would respond but there was no communication to either myself or the other pilot (I believe was an RV) that there were 2 aircraft on frequency with similar call signs. As I turned towards VPLGP from VPLDS; I believe I contacted the controller again to inform them of my position and altitude and we were headed towards VNY. Upon passing VPLGP; there was helicopter traffic passing dangerously close to our position. There was no call from the Tower to inform us; although I was monitoring closely via the onboard TCAS system and visually. This was another sign to me that ATC was not on their game and something was wrong. I heard some transmission from the VNY controller; but it wasn't clear if it was for me or the other similar tail number. At that time; I informed that Tower that I have the traffic in sight. I assumed their transmission was to report the traffic that was less than 300 feet away which we had already passed. I continued towards NVY per my route which was communicated to Santa Monica and again to VNY Controllers. Approximately 8 miles out; I reported my position and altitude to which now a new controller reacted with surprise and asked my intentions to which I said I had recently declared those to the controller before him on the same frequency and gave them my route once again. He was snarky and requested I turn to cross the 101 and stay on the south side to which I did. Again; I was dismayed with ATC as there was now another controller whom did not seem to have received the handover. The VNY Controller then came on again asking if I was familiar with the area because I wasn't now on the east side of the 405 freeway and that I was conflicting with arriving traffic to VNY and I just continue onwards. I believe he originally said the 101 and not the 405. Anyway; this isn't the pilot deviation issue or why I am filling out the NASA report. It's the backstory to the 'possible deviation'.When I got back to SMO; Ground told me there may have been a possible pilot deviation and to call Burbank Tower. I did immediately; I was pissed with how ATC handled me from departure to leaving VNY airspace despite my proactive reports; my flight plan; informing two controllers of it etc and to be then met with the mess. On the call with Burbank Tower; they claimed some things that were alarming. They said 'you were not talking to anyone'. Which I informed them was totally false. They claimed I was asked to transfer to Burbank Tower which I never heard from any controllerBefore I entered the Burbank Class C; I was under the impression from the original SoCal controller who knew my route (or should have) combined with talking to the VNY Controller; that they were in control of my transition through the Burbank Class C. Furthermore; I did not hear any conflicting information from the controller I had two way communication with; that my route was an issue; despite it being declared. Furthermore; when I was talking to the 2nd controller on the same frequency at VNY; he did not inform me I was not in his airspace when I was in Class Charlie at the time. I explained the majority of the above to Burbank Tower on the phone call and apologized that I entered their Class C and I wasn't talking to the right folks. I was apologetic. I did also vent I felt it was 'amateur hour' for what should have been a simple flight. In my flying career; I have helped pilots and ATC with mistakes while I was on frequency; I've understood and experienced when ATC becomes over stressed. But the 'dumping' that went on here put me into a situation where I had the impression I was talking to the right people to transition the Class C of Burbank. I understand at the end of the day; it's my position and responsibility to know that and I should have known that VNY was not the controlling ATC for the Class C. In fact; I'm not sure even at this moment if they are or they were not. Because it's very common in my flight following experience that a neighboring control enables you to transition an airspace especially when they are aware of your intentions and you are talking to them the whole time.

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.