Narrative:

On jan/mon/00, at approximately XA00 pm, I was in a BE55 (at new century air center, ixd). WX was 1200 ft AGL overcast, 4 mi visibility. My intent was to fly from ixd to mci. With WX conditions such as they were, I knew I would not be able to fly from ixd to mci and maintain VFR. I radioed the ground controller at ixd, requested clearance to taxi and asked for a 'tower-to-tower' clearance to mci, which is in a class B airspace. The ground controller cleared me to taxi and said my clearance was on request. After performing a run-up, I radioed the ground controller again and requested the clearance, at which time the ground controller provided a 'squawk' code. I then contacted the ixd tower and informed them I was ready for departure. The tower operator cleared me for takeoff. I had lifted off from ixd, and was still in VFR conditions, when the ixd tower directed me to contact mci approach control. I contacted mci approach, and was given a vector to fly and an altitude to maintain. Mci approach control informed me of the WX conditions at mci and informed me to expect the ILS runway 1L approach at mci. Mci approach control vectored me to intercept the localizer and cleared me for the ILS runway 1L approach. After landing at mci and taxiing to the GA ramp, I was contacted by an mci tower controller. The mci tower controller informed me that I had not been on an IFR clearance. I explained that I had requested a 'tower-to-tower' clearance from ixd controller, and stated that my assumption was that 'tower-to-tower' implied an IFR clearance. We both acknowledged that there was some confusion in the clearance, and the controller stated that the occurrence would be reviewed. Shortly thereafter, I returned to ixd, and was instructed to contact mci approach by phone. I spoke with the operations supervisor for the mci approach facility. I was queried concerning the previously mentioned incident, and informed that a violation would be filed. I asked him about the meaning of a 'tower-to-tower' clearance. He stated to me that his understanding of a 'tower-to-tower' clearance implied IFR. We both agreed there had been some confusion in the request and the provision of the clearance. I then phoned the tower at ixd and spoke with the supervisor. During this discussion, he indicated I had not specifically requested an IFR clearance. When I asked him what a 'tower-to-tower' clearance was, he stated to me that when a pilot requests a 'tower-to-tower' clearance, his assumption is that the pilot wants an IFR clearance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: conversation with reporter revealed that the tower en route (tower to tower) clearance was deemed appropriate by the local FSDO. The confusion occurred when the developmental controller at ixd, who had not heard of this type clearance, treated it as a flight following only. This surprised the arrival controllers since no flight plan was on file and WX conditions made IFR flight the most appropriate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFUSION DEVELOPS ON WHETHER OR NOT A CLRNC HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR A TWR ENRTE CLRNC AT MCI, MO.

Narrative: ON JAN/MON/00, AT APPROX XA00 PM, I WAS IN A BE55 (AT NEW CENTURY AIR CTR, IXD). WX WAS 1200 FT AGL OVCST, 4 MI VISIBILITY. MY INTENT WAS TO FLY FROM IXD TO MCI. WITH WX CONDITIONS SUCH AS THEY WERE, I KNEW I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FLY FROM IXD TO MCI AND MAINTAIN VFR. I RADIOED THE GND CTLR AT IXD, REQUESTED CLRNC TO TAXI AND ASKED FOR A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC TO MCI, WHICH IS IN A CLASS B AIRSPACE. THE GND CTLR CLRED ME TO TAXI AND SAID MY CLRNC WAS ON REQUEST. AFTER PERFORMING A RUN-UP, I RADIOED THE GND CTLR AGAIN AND REQUESTED THE CLRNC, AT WHICH TIME THE GND CTLR PROVIDED A 'SQUAWK' CODE. I THEN CONTACTED THE IXD TWR AND INFORMED THEM I WAS READY FOR DEP. THE TWR OPERATOR CLRED ME FOR TKOF. I HAD LIFTED OFF FROM IXD, AND WAS STILL IN VFR CONDITIONS, WHEN THE IXD TWR DIRECTED ME TO CONTACT MCI APCH CTL. I CONTACTED MCI APCH, AND WAS GIVEN A VECTOR TO FLY AND AN ALT TO MAINTAIN. MCI APCH CTL INFORMED ME OF THE WX CONDITIONS AT MCI AND INFORMED ME TO EXPECT THE ILS RWY 1L APCH AT MCI. MCI APCH CTL VECTORED ME TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND CLRED ME FOR THE ILS RWY 1L APCH. AFTER LNDG AT MCI AND TAXIING TO THE GA RAMP, I WAS CONTACTED BY AN MCI TWR CTLR. THE MCI TWR CTLR INFORMED ME THAT I HAD NOT BEEN ON AN IFR CLRNC. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD REQUESTED A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC FROM IXD CTLR, AND STATED THAT MY ASSUMPTION WAS THAT 'TWR-TO-TWR' IMPLIED AN IFR CLRNC. WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION IN THE CLRNC, AND THE CTLR STATED THAT THE OCCURRENCE WOULD BE REVIEWED. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, I RETURNED TO IXD, AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT MCI APCH BY PHONE. I SPOKE WITH THE OPS SUPVR FOR THE MCI APCH FACILITY. I WAS QUERIED CONCERNING THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED INCIDENT, AND INFORMED THAT A VIOLATION WOULD BE FILED. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE MEANING OF A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC. HE STATED TO ME THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC IMPLIED IFR. WE BOTH AGREED THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN THE REQUEST AND THE PROVISION OF THE CLRNC. I THEN PHONED THE TWR AT IXD AND SPOKE WITH THE SUPVR. DURING THIS DISCUSSION, HE INDICATED I HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED AN IFR CLRNC. WHEN I ASKED HIM WHAT A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC WAS, HE STATED TO ME THAT WHEN A PLT REQUESTS A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC, HIS ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE PLT WANTS AN IFR CLRNC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THAT THE TWR ENRTE (TWR TO TWR) CLRNC WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE LCL FSDO. THE CONFUSION OCCURRED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENTAL CTLR AT IXD, WHO HAD NOT HEARD OF THIS TYPE CLRNC, TREATED IT AS A FLT FOLLOWING ONLY. THIS SURPRISED THE ARR CTLRS SINCE NO FLT PLAN WAS ON FILE AND WX CONDITIONS MADE IFR FLT THE MOST APPROPRIATE.

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.