Narrative:

I conducted an IFR cross country flight with a safety pilot for the purpose of conducting practice approachs and a hold for currency maintenance purposes. The safety pilot holds both ATP/cfii certificates. The flts were conducted in VMC, under an IFR flight plan. The plan was to land, close and reopen the new flight plans at each point. The first leg worked out great. We then headed for sugarland (sgr). We requested an NDB approach and a hold for the missed. We were cleared for the NDB approach, and cleared to contact the tower. Upon contacting the sugarland tower, the controller stated that ATC could no longer handle practice approach requests after this one -- we acknowledged and requested instructions for the hold. The controller asked us to cancel IFR so we could conduct the approach. We were asked to conduct the hold at 2500 ft MSL, and were given a new squawk code after a series of holds over the NDB, we advised the controller that we needed to pick up our IFR clearance to dwh. We were told to continue to old until advised. After a short pause, the tower controller came back with our IFR clearance to dwh. The clearance was via radar vectors to dwh airport, maintain 2000 ft, expect 3000 ft 10 mins after departure. We were told, however, to not switch the squawk code, remain at 2500 ft, and instructed to fly to 'the north.' since this seemed highly irregular, I asked the controller to confirm that we were to stay at 2500 ft (which varied from the clearance) and not to squawk original code along with the 'fly north' instruction. In a few moments, we were asked to contact approach. Since this handoff seemed nonstandard, we called up approach with 'IFR request.' upon contacting the controller, we advised our altitude, that we were already given a clearance to dwh, a squawk code, but told not to switch to it. The controller, in response, asked us to squawk another code. At this point, I was worried that the controller thought we may have been VFR traffic due to our altitude and had missed that we had a different squawk already assigned. I entered the code as instructed, but felt I needed to reiterate my previous comment for safety reasons. Meanwhile, my safety pilot let me know that another aircraft passed within 500 ft of us underneath. So much for separation services. The near miss caused my concern level to shoot up even high. I repeated my previous requests again, and reminded approach that we were IFR. This time, the controller came back, and asked 'where did you get the clearance from?' my safety pilot advised that sugarland tower gave the clearance. He then requested direct kohry. The controller came back and asked what kohry was, which we explained was the IAF for the GPS 35 approach. We then received yet another clearance, which was 'direct kohry, maintain 1800 ft until established, cleared for the GPS 35 approach.' my concern level shot up yet again. At this point, I was worried about the potential for towers in the vicinity. My safety pilot noted one in our flight path, but said we would clear it. Given that I had been told to maintain 1800 ft, I began the descent down, and asked my safety pilot to monitor it and our relative position. Approach then vectored us to a new heading, and then vectored us again -- this time, directly into the tower in front of us. The controller asked if we saw the tower, which we acknowledged and took evasive action to avoid it. He then cleared us again for the approach, which was completed successfully. There were several things wrong with this whole episode. 1) I was never 100% sure if the last segment of the flight was considered IFR or VFR. Things were happening so fast. I assumed the flight was conducted under IFR as I received a clearance from another part of the ATC system (sgr tower) and was told approach was expecting me. The approach controller also acknowledged my statement about the IFR clearance when he said 'I understand you have an IFR clearance.' however, this whole thing was confusing. I never canceled IFR after receiving the clearance from sgr, and was never told that I was not IFR. Most serious, is that during departure from sgr and en route to dwh, we had an near midair collision of 500 ft -- despite being under alleged positive control. Separation for IFR aircraft should be provided. And the tower problem en route to the IAF made all of this VFR versus IFR conversation more concerning. We were being vectored -- the MVA is not always clear of obstructions. Communication is the key. There needs to be consistent communication over when you are IFR or VFR after getting a clearance. I do not believe that any controller should be allowed to give an IFR clearance, coordinate with approach, and then order you not to squawk the correct code and fly a VFR altitude. This creates far too much confusion in an already congested airspace. Controller also need to know the IAF's for all approachs in their sector, or have a means to find them. If a lower than normal altitude is used (below MEA or otherwise) the controller must insure adequate obstacle clearance exists when participating in an IFR environment. Finally, any time there is confusion over a clearance or a squawk denotes an emergency situation, the possibility exists for serious problems to develop. The controller should use standard phraseology such as 'clearance conflict, state present clearance profile.' the pilot would then read back the information I just outlined. This gets all the information to the new controller who is trying to resolve the conflict as soon as possible -- and lets both parties know the other one understands each other's situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 PLT WITH OBSERVER ENCOUNTER OBSTACLES AND TFC WHEN VECTORED BY IAH FROM SGR TO DWH, NOT VALIDATING WHETHER IFR OR VFR FROM SGR TWR OR IAH TRACON.

Narrative: I CONDUCTED AN IFR XCOUNTRY FLT WITH A SAFETY PLT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING PRACTICE APCHS AND A HOLD FOR CURRENCY MAINT PURPOSES. THE SAFETY PLT HOLDS BOTH ATP/CFII CERTIFICATES. THE FLTS WERE CONDUCTED IN VMC, UNDER AN IFR FLT PLAN. THE PLAN WAS TO LAND, CLOSE AND REOPEN THE NEW FLT PLANS AT EACH POINT. THE FIRST LEG WORKED OUT GREAT. WE THEN HEADED FOR SUGARLAND (SGR). WE REQUESTED AN NDB APCH AND A HOLD FOR THE MISSED. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE NDB APCH, AND CLRED TO CONTACT THE TWR. UPON CONTACTING THE SUGARLAND TWR, THE CTLR STATED THAT ATC COULD NO LONGER HANDLE PRACTICE APCH REQUESTS AFTER THIS ONE -- WE ACKNOWLEDGED AND REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE HOLD. THE CTLR ASKED US TO CANCEL IFR SO WE COULD CONDUCT THE APCH. WE WERE ASKED TO CONDUCT THE HOLD AT 2500 FT MSL, AND WERE GIVEN A NEW SQUAWK CODE AFTER A SERIES OF HOLDS OVER THE NDB, WE ADVISED THE CTLR THAT WE NEEDED TO PICK UP OUR IFR CLRNC TO DWH. WE WERE TOLD TO CONTINUE TO OLD UNTIL ADVISED. AFTER A SHORT PAUSE, THE TWR CTLR CAME BACK WITH OUR IFR CLRNC TO DWH. THE CLRNC WAS VIA RADAR VECTORS TO DWH ARPT, MAINTAIN 2000 FT, EXPECT 3000 FT 10 MINS AFTER DEP. WE WERE TOLD, HOWEVER, TO NOT SWITCH THE SQUAWK CODE, REMAIN AT 2500 FT, AND INSTRUCTED TO FLY TO 'THE N.' SINCE THIS SEEMED HIGHLY IRREGULAR, I ASKED THE CTLR TO CONFIRM THAT WE WERE TO STAY AT 2500 FT (WHICH VARIED FROM THE CLRNC) AND NOT TO SQUAWK ORIGINAL CODE ALONG WITH THE 'FLY N' INSTRUCTION. IN A FEW MOMENTS, WE WERE ASKED TO CONTACT APCH. SINCE THIS HDOF SEEMED NONSTANDARD, WE CALLED UP APCH WITH 'IFR REQUEST.' UPON CONTACTING THE CTLR, WE ADVISED OUR ALT, THAT WE WERE ALREADY GIVEN A CLRNC TO DWH, A SQUAWK CODE, BUT TOLD NOT TO SWITCH TO IT. THE CTLR, IN RESPONSE, ASKED US TO SQUAWK ANOTHER CODE. AT THIS POINT, I WAS WORRIED THAT THE CTLR THOUGHT WE MAY HAVE BEEN VFR TFC DUE TO OUR ALT AND HAD MISSED THAT WE HAD A DIFFERENT SQUAWK ALREADY ASSIGNED. I ENTERED THE CODE AS INSTRUCTED, BUT FELT I NEEDED TO REITERATE MY PREVIOUS COMMENT FOR SAFETY REASONS. MEANWHILE, MY SAFETY PLT LET ME KNOW THAT ANOTHER ACFT PASSED WITHIN 500 FT OF US UNDERNEATH. SO MUCH FOR SEPARATION SVCS. THE NEAR MISS CAUSED MY CONCERN LEVEL TO SHOOT UP EVEN HIGH. I REPEATED MY PREVIOUS REQUESTS AGAIN, AND REMINDED APCH THAT WE WERE IFR. THIS TIME, THE CTLR CAME BACK, AND ASKED 'WHERE DID YOU GET THE CLRNC FROM?' MY SAFETY PLT ADVISED THAT SUGARLAND TWR GAVE THE CLRNC. HE THEN REQUESTED DIRECT KOHRY. THE CTLR CAME BACK AND ASKED WHAT KOHRY WAS, WHICH WE EXPLAINED WAS THE IAF FOR THE GPS 35 APCH. WE THEN RECEIVED YET ANOTHER CLRNC, WHICH WAS 'DIRECT KOHRY, MAINTAIN 1800 FT UNTIL ESTABLISHED, CLRED FOR THE GPS 35 APCH.' MY CONCERN LEVEL SHOT UP YET AGAIN. AT THIS POINT, I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR TWRS IN THE VICINITY. MY SAFETY PLT NOTED ONE IN OUR FLT PATH, BUT SAID WE WOULD CLR IT. GIVEN THAT I HAD BEEN TOLD TO MAINTAIN 1800 FT, I BEGAN THE DSCNT DOWN, AND ASKED MY SAFETY PLT TO MONITOR IT AND OUR RELATIVE POS. APCH THEN VECTORED US TO A NEW HDG, AND THEN VECTORED US AGAIN -- THIS TIME, DIRECTLY INTO THE TWR IN FRONT OF US. THE CTLR ASKED IF WE SAW THE TWR, WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGED AND TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID IT. HE THEN CLRED US AGAIN FOR THE APCH, WHICH WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY. THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS WRONG WITH THIS WHOLE EPISODE. 1) I WAS NEVER 100% SURE IF THE LAST SEGMENT OF THE FLT WAS CONSIDERED IFR OR VFR. THINGS WERE HAPPENING SO FAST. I ASSUMED THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER IFR AS I RECEIVED A CLRNC FROM ANOTHER PART OF THE ATC SYS (SGR TWR) AND WAS TOLD APCH WAS EXPECTING ME. THE APCH CTLR ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED MY STATEMENT ABOUT THE IFR CLRNC WHEN HE SAID 'I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE AN IFR CLRNC.' HOWEVER, THIS WHOLE THING WAS CONFUSING. I NEVER CANCELED IFR AFTER RECEIVING THE CLRNC FROM SGR, AND WAS NEVER TOLD THAT I WAS NOT IFR. MOST SERIOUS, IS THAT DURING DEP FROM SGR AND ENRTE TO DWH, WE HAD AN NMAC OF 500 FT -- DESPITE BEING UNDER ALLEGED POSITIVE CTL. SEPARATION FOR IFR ACFT SHOULD BE PROVIDED. AND THE TWR PROB ENRTE TO THE IAF MADE ALL OF THIS VFR VERSUS IFR CONVERSATION MORE CONCERNING. WE WERE BEING VECTORED -- THE MVA IS NOT ALWAYS CLR OF OBSTRUCTIONS. COM IS THE KEY. THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT COM OVER WHEN YOU ARE IFR OR VFR AFTER GETTING A CLRNC. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY CTLR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GIVE AN IFR CLRNC, COORDINATE WITH APCH, AND THEN ORDER YOU NOT TO SQUAWK THE CORRECT CODE AND FLY A VFR ALT. THIS CREATES FAR TOO MUCH CONFUSION IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AIRSPACE. CTLR ALSO NEED TO KNOW THE IAF'S FOR ALL APCHS IN THEIR SECTOR, OR HAVE A MEANS TO FIND THEM. IF A LOWER THAN NORMAL ALT IS USED (BELOW MEA OR OTHERWISE) THE CTLR MUST INSURE ADEQUATE OBSTACLE CLRNC EXISTS WHEN PARTICIPATING IN AN IFR ENVIRONMENT. FINALLY, ANY TIME THERE IS CONFUSION OVER A CLRNC OR A SQUAWK DENOTES AN EMER SIT, THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS FOR SERIOUS PROBS TO DEVELOP. THE CTLR SHOULD USE STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY SUCH AS 'CLRNC CONFLICT, STATE PRESENT CLRNC PROFILE.' THE PLT WOULD THEN READ BACK THE INFO I JUST OUTLINED. THIS GETS ALL THE INFO TO THE NEW CTLR WHO IS TRYING TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT ASAP -- AND LETS BOTH PARTIES KNOW THE OTHER ONE UNDERSTANDS EACH OTHER'S SIT.

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.