Narrative:

Returning from palm springs to santa monica, I contacted psp clearance on 128.35. I requested tower en route psp to smo. The controller asked for an altitude and I gave him 12000 ft (the requisite altitude for the tower en route control) and he asked me to stand by for a squawk code. He then gave me a code and departure frequency, and departure instructions. I taxied and told tower I was 'waiting IFR release.' tower then cleared me for takeoff and then asked me to contact departure. Departure gave me a heading consistent with the tower en route procedures and then advised 'resume own navigation.' I was then asked to contact center. Center then stated they did not have an IFR plan for me. I advised them I had requested a 'tower en route' and they then gave me a new code and clearance to smo. Although the period of time where the IFR clearance was in question was in VMC and in compliance with VFR, the possibility existed that I could have flown into IMC without clearance. Later I was advised that psp clearance had not issued a clearance. I believe the problem arose due to non common VFR departure clrncs given by clearance or ground. The possibility exists that pilots requesting abbreviated clrncs (with predetermined rtes -- such as tower-to-tower), may believe they have received clearance. Contributing factors may be controllers misunderstanding requests and pilots believing their request is understood and certain directions meaning that the controller is approving the request. It would be very helpful to have VFR/departure clrncs (which are now a requirement at many airports and handled by the same persons handling IFR clrncs) be very specifically idented as such. For example, the controller could state, 'you are cleared VFR....' this would avoid any possible misunderstandings potentially leading to loss of life.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PSP DEP XFERS C501 FROM TWR ENRTE CTL CLRNC TO ZLA WITHOUT PROPER COORD. PLT QUESTIONS PUBLISHED PROC.

Narrative: RETURNING FROM PALM SPRINGS TO SANTA MONICA, I CONTACTED PSP CLRNC ON 128.35. I REQUESTED TWR ENRTE PSP TO SMO. THE CTLR ASKED FOR AN ALT AND I GAVE HIM 12000 FT (THE REQUISITE ALT FOR THE TWR ENRTE CTL) AND HE ASKED ME TO STAND BY FOR A SQUAWK CODE. HE THEN GAVE ME A CODE AND DEP FREQ, AND DEP INSTRUCTIONS. I TAXIED AND TOLD TWR I WAS 'WAITING IFR RELEASE.' TWR THEN CLRED ME FOR TKOF AND THEN ASKED ME TO CONTACT DEP. DEP GAVE ME A HDG CONSISTENT WITH THE TWR ENRTE PROCS AND THEN ADVISED 'RESUME OWN NAV.' I WAS THEN ASKED TO CONTACT CTR. CTR THEN STATED THEY DID NOT HAVE AN IFR PLAN FOR ME. I ADVISED THEM I HAD REQUESTED A 'TWR ENRTE' AND THEY THEN GAVE ME A NEW CODE AND CLRNC TO SMO. ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THE IFR CLRNC WAS IN QUESTION WAS IN VMC AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH VFR, THE POSSIBILITY EXISTED THAT I COULD HAVE FLOWN INTO IMC WITHOUT CLRNC. LATER I WAS ADVISED THAT PSP CLRNC HAD NOT ISSUED A CLRNC. I BELIEVE THE PROB AROSE DUE TO NON COMMON VFR DEP CLRNCS GIVEN BY CLRNC OR GND. THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT PLTS REQUESTING ABBREVIATED CLRNCS (WITH PREDETERMINED RTES -- SUCH AS TWR-TO-TWR), MAY BELIEVE THEY HAVE RECEIVED CLRNC. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS MAY BE CTLRS MISUNDERSTANDING REQUESTS AND PLTS BELIEVING THEIR REQUEST IS UNDERSTOOD AND CERTAIN DIRECTIONS MEANING THAT THE CTLR IS APPROVING THE REQUEST. IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE VFR/DEP CLRNCS (WHICH ARE NOW A REQUIREMENT AT MANY ARPTS AND HANDLED BY THE SAME PERSONS HANDLING IFR CLRNCS) BE VERY SPECIFICALLY IDENTED AS SUCH. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CTLR COULD STATE, 'YOU ARE CLRED VFR....' THIS WOULD AVOID ANY POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDINGS POTENTIALLY LEADING TO LOSS OF LIFE.

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.