Clearance confusion regarding VFR or IFR status.

Attributes
ACN	300940
Time
Date	199504
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : oak
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zoa
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 75 flight time total : 1550 flight time type : 25
ASRS Report	300940
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Inter Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

Contacted bay approach (135.4) in flight, requested IFR to apc. Told 'standby for squawk.' then 'nxxx, radar contact, (position), fly heading 340 degrees to intercept sgd 127 degrees radial, cleared direct sgd direct, maintain 4000 ft. The flight proceeded uneventfully IFR in VMC at 4000 ft. Handed off to another bay sector (127.0) then to travis approach 119.0 then ZOA. Nearing sgd, it was obvious apc was VFR so called ZOA to request visual approach. After some delay, controller responded 'cleared for VOR runway 6 approach.' I responded 'canceling IFR, request frequency change to napa tower' ZOA then displayed some confusion of status of flight visibility-a-visibility IFR verses VFR advisories. Told to contact ZOA supervisor after landing and discussed with him. He confirmed that ZOA thought flight originated oakland airport (not true - pao was departure airport) and that flight was not IFR. Concerned with class B clearance. He admitted that both travis approach and ZOA thought flight was VFR not IFR. Pilot assumed IFR clearance since complete clearance issued as above.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLRNC CONFUSION REGARDING VFR OR IFR STATUS.

Narrative: CONTACTED BAY APCH (135.4) IN FLT, REQUESTED IFR TO APC. TOLD 'STANDBY FOR SQUAWK.' THEN 'NXXX, RADAR CONTACT, (POS), FLY HDG 340 DEGS TO INTERCEPT SGD 127 DEGS RADIAL, CLRED DIRECT SGD DIRECT, MAINTAIN 4000 FT. THE FLT PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY IFR IN VMC AT 4000 FT. HANDED OFF TO ANOTHER BAY SECTOR (127.0) THEN TO TRAVIS APCH 119.0 THEN ZOA. NEARING SGD, IT WAS OBVIOUS APC WAS VFR SO CALLED ZOA TO REQUEST VISUAL APCH. AFTER SOME DELAY, CTLR RESPONDED 'CLRED FOR VOR RWY 6 APCH.' I RESPONDED 'CANCELING IFR, REQUEST FREQ CHANGE TO NAPA TWR' ZOA THEN DISPLAYED SOME CONFUSION OF STATUS OF FLT VIS-A-VIS IFR VERSES VFR ADVISORIES. TOLD TO CONTACT ZOA SUPVR AFTER LNDG AND DISCUSSED WITH HIM. HE CONFIRMED THAT ZOA THOUGHT FLT ORIGINATED OAKLAND ARPT (NOT TRUE - PAO WAS DEP ARPT) AND THAT FLT WAS NOT IFR. CONCERNED WITH CLASS B CLRNC. HE ADMITTED THAT BOTH TRAVIS APCH AND ZOA THOUGHT FLT WAS VFR NOT IFR. PLT ASSUMED IFR CLRNC SINCE COMPLETE CLRNC ISSUED AS ABOVE.

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.