Narrative:

I departed frederick airport with IFR clearance direct to EMI VOR then an airway route over mrb VOR and on to a destination of uni. Upon initial call to bwi departure, I notified bwi that I was in VFR conditions and asked for VFR on top clearance. At same time I began a turn to the west towards uni on my own navigation instead of flying the IFR clearance route as outlined in the aim. The controller thought I wished to cancel IFR and proceed VFR. I informed him that I wanted VFR on top to destination and was proceeding VFR on top at 6500 ft. At that point, I had gone far enough west to cross into dulles sector's airspace and was told to call dulles approach. On initial call-up, I was informed that bwi approach had said I was now VFR and I again restated I wanted to be IFR with VFR on top operations. He responded with a 'roger' and I didn't hear his ensuing altitude assignment to maintain 6000 ft. I continued through 6000 ft to 6500 ft for VFR altitude believing I was approved for VFR on top operations. I had established myself direct to mrb VOR, which wasn't my IFR clearance route. When through 6300 ft, the controller queried again about my intentions for VFR and I requested VFR on top at 6500 ft. At that point, he said that cancellation was received and to maintain VFR conditions. After flight following through rest of dulles airspace and a handoff to ZDC, I requested and received an IFR clearance for rest of trip at 6000 ft. Rest of trip made without incident. This was a very confusing couple of mins for me and apparently the controllers as well. I erred in assuming that I could obtain a VFR on top clearance and proceed direct instead of following the IFR clearance I had been issued on the ground at fdk by bwi clearance. The controllers, in my opinion, didn't know what VFR on top was or how to issue the clearance to me, or what I was expected to do on a VFR on top operation. Perhaps if I would have continued on my clearance route to EMI, and allowed them to sort out what to issue to me, it all would have gone smoother. We never had any traffic conflicts, or saw traffic come too close, but it was a communications nightmare. As a result of the occurrence, I researched the VFR on top procedures for myself and for controllers. I am more comfortable with the procedure, especially with the understanding that: 1) it must be approved by ATC first, 2) it isn't automatically a clearance to resume own direct navigation, and 3) controllers in this area of the country don't use VFR on top procedures very often and may not know what to do if it is requested.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A BE36 CONFUSES 2 TRACON CTLRS BY DEVIATING FROM HIS RTE WHILE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AND REQUESTING A 'VFR ON TOP AT 6500 FT.'

Narrative: I DEPARTED FREDERICK ARPT WITH IFR CLRNC DIRECT TO EMI VOR THEN AN AIRWAY RTE OVER MRB VOR AND ON TO A DEST OF UNI. UPON INITIAL CALL TO BWI DEP, I NOTIFIED BWI THAT I WAS IN VFR CONDITIONS AND ASKED FOR VFR ON TOP CLRNC. AT SAME TIME I BEGAN A TURN TO THE W TOWARDS UNI ON MY OWN NAV INSTEAD OF FLYING THE IFR CLRNC RTE AS OUTLINED IN THE AIM. THE CTLR THOUGHT I WISHED TO CANCEL IFR AND PROCEED VFR. I INFORMED HIM THAT I WANTED VFR ON TOP TO DEST AND WAS PROCEEDING VFR ON TOP AT 6500 FT. AT THAT POINT, I HAD GONE FAR ENOUGH W TO CROSS INTO DULLES SECTOR'S AIRSPACE AND WAS TOLD TO CALL DULLES APCH. ON INITIAL CALL-UP, I WAS INFORMED THAT BWI APCH HAD SAID I WAS NOW VFR AND I AGAIN RESTATED I WANTED TO BE IFR WITH VFR ON TOP OPS. HE RESPONDED WITH A 'ROGER' AND I DIDN'T HEAR HIS ENSUING ALT ASSIGNMENT TO MAINTAIN 6000 FT. I CONTINUED THROUGH 6000 FT TO 6500 FT FOR VFR ALT BELIEVING I WAS APPROVED FOR VFR ON TOP OPS. I HAD ESTABLISHED MYSELF DIRECT TO MRB VOR, WHICH WASN'T MY IFR CLRNC RTE. WHEN THROUGH 6300 FT, THE CTLR QUERIED AGAIN ABOUT MY INTENTIONS FOR VFR AND I REQUESTED VFR ON TOP AT 6500 FT. AT THAT POINT, HE SAID THAT CANCELLATION WAS RECEIVED AND TO MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS. AFTER FLT FOLLOWING THROUGH REST OF DULLES AIRSPACE AND A HDOF TO ZDC, I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED AN IFR CLRNC FOR REST OF TRIP AT 6000 FT. REST OF TRIP MADE WITHOUT INCIDENT. THIS WAS A VERY CONFUSING COUPLE OF MINS FOR ME AND APPARENTLY THE CTLRS AS WELL. I ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT I COULD OBTAIN A VFR ON TOP CLRNC AND PROCEED DIRECT INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE IFR CLRNC I HAD BEEN ISSUED ON THE GND AT FDK BY BWI CLRNC. THE CTLRS, IN MY OPINION, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT VFR ON TOP WAS OR HOW TO ISSUE THE CLRNC TO ME, OR WHAT I WAS EXPECTED TO DO ON A VFR ON TOP OP. PERHAPS IF I WOULD HAVE CONTINUED ON MY CLRNC RTE TO EMI, AND ALLOWED THEM TO SORT OUT WHAT TO ISSUE TO ME, IT ALL WOULD HAVE GONE SMOOTHER. WE NEVER HAD ANY TFC CONFLICTS, OR SAW TFC COME TOO CLOSE, BUT IT WAS A COMS NIGHTMARE. AS A RESULT OF THE OCCURRENCE, I RESEARCHED THE VFR ON TOP PROCS FOR MYSELF AND FOR CTLRS. I AM MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROC, ESPECIALLY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT: 1) IT MUST BE APPROVED BY ATC FIRST, 2) IT ISN'T AUTOMATICALLY A CLRNC TO RESUME OWN DIRECT NAV, AND 3) CTLRS IN THIS AREA OF THE COUNTRY DON'T USE VFR ON TOP PROCS VERY OFTEN AND MAY NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO IF IT IS REQUESTED.

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.