Narrative:

I was receiving flight training in a corp jet aircraft from an instrument employed by a large training organization. I was not familiar with the local procedures used by this instrument (formerly a military pilot). I was in the left seat. He contacted clearance delivery and requested 'radar control clearance' west of the airport to 14500' MSL for air work, then return for practice approachs. Clearance delivery assigned us a transponder code, a heading of 260 degrees and maintain 5000'. After departure we were handed off to approach control and while climbing through 4000' the controller cleared us to climb on a heading and altitude at our discretion. Again I asked the instrument pilot about whether we had an IFR clearance, reference the unusual clearance to climb at our discretion with no block altitude limits. At this time climbing through 5000' the controller advised us to climb VFR at our discretion with no block altitude limits. We were IMC at 4000'. His reply to me was, 'now they tell us--but we're ok, we're in radar control.' we continued our climb to VFR on top. He gave approach control a tops report at 12000', which led me to believe ht thought we did have an IFR clearance. After completing our air work, we were given a proper IFR clearance for the descent and practice approachs. I believe a strong factor in this incident was the instrument's prior military service, causing him to use terminology which meant one thing to him but nothing to a civilian controller.I would have questioned the clearance more if the instrument was not part of a large organization that conducts several training flts. The controller should have questioned what he apparently thought was a VFR request with these WX conditions. The instrument pilot believed he made a request for an IFR clearance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PHRASEOLOGY OF CLRNC REQUEST AND PHRASEOLOGY OF CLRNC CAUSED CTLR TO THINK THE FLT WAS CLIMBING IN VMC ON VFR CLRNC. INSTRUCTOR PLT THOUGHT THE TRAINING FLT HAD IFR CLRNC TO CLIMB TO ON TOP.

Narrative: I WAS RECEIVING FLT TRNING IN A CORP JET ACFT FROM AN INSTR EMPLOYED BY A LARGE TRNING ORGANIZATION. I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LCL PROCS USED BY THIS INSTR (FORMERLY A MIL PLT). I WAS IN THE LEFT SEAT. HE CONTACTED CLRNC DELIVERY AND REQUESTED 'RADAR CTL CLRNC' W OF THE ARPT TO 14500' MSL FOR AIR WORK, THEN RETURN FOR PRACTICE APCHS. CLRNC DELIVERY ASSIGNED US A XPONDER CODE, A HDG OF 260 DEGS AND MAINTAIN 5000'. AFTER DEP WE WERE HANDED OFF TO APCH CTL AND WHILE CLBING THROUGH 4000' THE CTLR CLRED US TO CLB ON A HDG AND ALT AT OUR DISCRETION. AGAIN I ASKED THE INSTR PLT ABOUT WHETHER WE HAD AN IFR CLRNC, REF THE UNUSUAL CLRNC TO CLB AT OUR DISCRETION WITH NO BLOCK ALT LIMITS. AT THIS TIME CLBING THROUGH 5000' THE CTLR ADVISED US TO CLB VFR AT OUR DISCRETION WITH NO BLOCK ALT LIMITS. WE WERE IMC AT 4000'. HIS REPLY TO ME WAS, 'NOW THEY TELL US--BUT WE'RE OK, WE'RE IN RADAR CTL.' WE CONTINUED OUR CLB TO VFR ON TOP. HE GAVE APCH CTL A TOPS RPT AT 12000', WHICH LED ME TO BELIEVE HT THOUGHT WE DID HAVE AN IFR CLRNC. AFTER COMPLETING OUR AIR WORK, WE WERE GIVEN A PROPER IFR CLRNC FOR THE DSNT AND PRACTICE APCHS. I BELIEVE A STRONG FACTOR IN THIS INCIDENT WAS THE INSTR'S PRIOR MIL SVC, CAUSING HIM TO USE TERMINOLOGY WHICH MEANT ONE THING TO HIM BUT NOTHING TO A CIVILIAN CTLR.I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CLRNC MORE IF THE INSTR WAS NOT PART OF A LARGE ORGANIZATION THAT CONDUCTS SEVERAL TRNING FLTS. THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED WHAT HE APPARENTLY THOUGHT WAS A VFR REQUEST WITH THESE WX CONDITIONS. THE INSTR PLT BELIEVED HE MADE A REQUEST FOR AN IFR CLRNC.

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.