Narrative:

This was an ADIZ flight out of gaithersburg airpark in montgomery county, md, to hanover airport in the richmond, va. In order to avoid dulles class B airspace, I flew from gaithersburg toward leesburg, va, and then ssw until clear of dulles airspace. I have flown approximately 7 ADIZ flts in 2003. On this day, I was flying a cessna 172. I followed the same procedures used in my previous ADIZ flts. First, I filed an ADIZ flight plan with FSS. Casanova VOR was given as my ADIZ exit point. To the best of my recollection. I gave XA35 local as my estimated departure time. After preflting the plane, I contacted potomac clearance on 121.6 giving my tail number, location, and request. I was immediately assigned a squawk code and given a frequency for potomac departure (128.7). To the best of my recollection, I departed at XA50 local and headed directly for leesburg remaining under 1500 ft AGL to stay under dulles airspace. Departure was quite busy with commercial traffic, and I had traveled close to 10 mi before contacting departure due to the traffic on the frequency. I reported my tail number, location, altitude, and that I was VFR. The controller acknowledged the call and advised me to contact ATC on 119.xx(?) to 'let them know what I was doing.' I asked for confirmation of the frequency and then made the call, reporting again as I did on the original frequency. I don't believe that my call was acknowledged. I remained on the new frequency as I headed south from leesburg. I received no communications as I approached and then passed the ADIZ boundary. I radioed ATC, but the signal was weak and I got no response. Incidentally, I noticed at this time that though I heard the pilot's side of the xmissions, I was not then picking up the ATC side of the communications. Assuming that I was out of range for this frequency, I contacted FSS and explained that I had not received authority/authorized to squawk VFR and asked for a frequency on which to contact ATC. I was given 124.65 and made a call explaining the situation. The controller remarked that they had been watching me, but that I was 'not in the system.' I was then told to call FAA after landing to report the situation, as an ADIZ violation had occurred. I was then authority/authorized to squawk VFR and proceeded on my way. In retrospect, I should have gone back to the original frequency for clarification when my call to the second frequency was not acknowledged. A contributing factor in the context of the ADIZ environment is that ATC is dealing with many pilots who have very limited dealings with ATC. Related to this is that there is confusion about the nature of the ADIZ process. Is ATC 'controling' VFR pilots in ADIZ areas? Is a 'clearance' necessary to enter the ADIZ after a code has been assigned? Controllers are not consistent with their language on this. I have personally experienced, and have heard anecdotally from others, cases where a controller assigns a code, but does not explicitly authority/authorized entry into the ADIZ. A call to clarify produces annoyance on the part of a busy controller, who remarks that clearance is not required and assignment of a code, is the authority/authorized to enter the ADIZ. Other controllers have contradicted this. These uncertainties place non-instrument rated pilots in difficult sits. Though this is not the problem in the immediate case, uncertainty of the ADIZ procedures did contribute to the immediate problem. I believed that when I contacted departure and was acknowledged that I had fully complied with the ADIZ requirements. From my understanding, I am not being controled in the technical sense while in the ADIZ, I understand that it is more akin to flight following. At any rate, once I had established contact, the next thing I anticipated was being released out of the ADIZ and permitted to squawk VFR. Since I was told to 'check in' with the new controller, I did not necessarily expect to receive any communication from him/her until I exited the ADIZ. To summarize, I think ATC is unrealistic as to facility with which they expect VFR pilots to have within the ATC environment and should be clrer with instructions. Secondly, the ADIZ progress is not being uniformly applied by ATC and is creating unnecessary confusion among the pilots. These factors contributed to the problem in this case.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 DEPARTING GAI IS INFORMED OF POSSIBLE ADIZ VIOLATION BY PCT ATC.

Narrative: THIS WAS AN ADIZ FLT OUT OF GAITHERSBURG AIRPARK IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD, TO HANOVER ARPT IN THE RICHMOND, VA. IN ORDER TO AVOID DULLES CLASS B AIRSPACE, I FLEW FROM GAITHERSBURG TOWARD LEESBURG, VA, AND THEN SSW UNTIL CLR OF DULLES AIRSPACE. I HAVE FLOWN APPROX 7 ADIZ FLTS IN 2003. ON THIS DAY, I WAS FLYING A CESSNA 172. I FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCS USED IN MY PREVIOUS ADIZ FLTS. FIRST, I FILED AN ADIZ FLT PLAN WITH FSS. CASANOVA VOR WAS GIVEN AS MY ADIZ EXIT POINT. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. I GAVE XA35 LCL AS MY ESTIMATED DEP TIME. AFTER PREFLTING THE PLANE, I CONTACTED POTOMAC CLRNC ON 121.6 GIVING MY TAIL NUMBER, LOCATION, AND REQUEST. I WAS IMMEDIATELY ASSIGNED A SQUAWK CODE AND GIVEN A FREQ FOR POTOMAC DEP (128.7). TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I DEPARTED AT XA50 LCL AND HEADED DIRECTLY FOR LEESBURG REMAINING UNDER 1500 FT AGL TO STAY UNDER DULLES AIRSPACE. DEP WAS QUITE BUSY WITH COMMERCIAL TFC, AND I HAD TRAVELED CLOSE TO 10 MI BEFORE CONTACTING DEP DUE TO THE TFC ON THE FREQ. I RPTED MY TAIL NUMBER, LOCATION, ALT, AND THAT I WAS VFR. THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED THE CALL AND ADVISED ME TO CONTACT ATC ON 119.XX(?) TO 'LET THEM KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING.' I ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE FREQ AND THEN MADE THE CALL, RPTING AGAIN AS I DID ON THE ORIGINAL FREQ. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MY CALL WAS ACKNOWLEDGED. I REMAINED ON THE NEW FREQ AS I HEADED S FROM LEESBURG. I RECEIVED NO COMS AS I APCHED AND THEN PASSED THE ADIZ BOUNDARY. I RADIOED ATC, BUT THE SIGNAL WAS WEAK AND I GOT NO RESPONSE. INCIDENTALLY, I NOTICED AT THIS TIME THAT THOUGH I HEARD THE PLT'S SIDE OF THE XMISSIONS, I WAS NOT THEN PICKING UP THE ATC SIDE OF THE COMS. ASSUMING THAT I WAS OUT OF RANGE FOR THIS FREQ, I CONTACTED FSS AND EXPLAINED THAT I HAD NOT RECEIVED AUTH TO SQUAWK VFR AND ASKED FOR A FREQ ON WHICH TO CONTACT ATC. I WAS GIVEN 124.65 AND MADE A CALL EXPLAINING THE SIT. THE CTLR REMARKED THAT THEY HAD BEEN WATCHING ME, BUT THAT I WAS 'NOT IN THE SYS.' I WAS THEN TOLD TO CALL FAA AFTER LNDG TO RPT THE SIT, AS AN ADIZ VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED. I WAS THEN AUTH TO SQUAWK VFR AND PROCEEDED ON MY WAY. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FREQ FOR CLARIFICATION WHEN MY CALL TO THE SECOND FREQ WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ADIZ ENVIRONMENT IS THAT ATC IS DEALING WITH MANY PLTS WHO HAVE VERY LIMITED DEALINGS WITH ATC. RELATED TO THIS IS THAT THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ADIZ PROCESS. IS ATC 'CTLING' VFR PLTS IN ADIZ AREAS? IS A 'CLRNC' NECESSARY TO ENTER THE ADIZ AFTER A CODE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED? CTLRS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THEIR LANGUAGE ON THIS. I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED, AND HAVE HEARD ANECDOTALLY FROM OTHERS, CASES WHERE A CTLR ASSIGNS A CODE, BUT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY AUTH ENTRY INTO THE ADIZ. A CALL TO CLARIFY PRODUCES ANNOYANCE ON THE PART OF A BUSY CTLR, WHO REMARKS THAT CLRNC IS NOT REQUIRED AND ASSIGNMENT OF A CODE, IS THE AUTH TO ENTER THE ADIZ. OTHER CTLRS HAVE CONTRADICTED THIS. THESE UNCERTAINTIES PLACE NON-INST RATED PLTS IN DIFFICULT SITS. THOUGH THIS IS NOT THE PROB IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE, UNCERTAINTY OF THE ADIZ PROCS DID CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMMEDIATE PROB. I BELIEVED THAT WHEN I CONTACTED DEP AND WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE ADIZ REQUIREMENTS. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I AM NOT BEING CTLED IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE WHILE IN THE ADIZ, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS MORE AKIN TO FLT FOLLOWING. AT ANY RATE, ONCE I HAD ESTABLISHED CONTACT, THE NEXT THING I ANTICIPATED WAS BEING RELEASED OUT OF THE ADIZ AND PERMITTED TO SQUAWK VFR. SINCE I WAS TOLD TO 'CHK IN' WITH THE NEW CTLR, I DID NOT NECESSARILY EXPECT TO RECEIVE ANY COM FROM HIM/HER UNTIL I EXITED THE ADIZ. TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK ATC IS UNREALISTIC AS TO FACILITY WITH WHICH THEY EXPECT VFR PLTS TO HAVE WITHIN THE ATC ENVIRONMENT AND SHOULD BE CLRER WITH INSTRUCTIONS. SECONDLY, THE ADIZ PROGRESS IS NOT BEING UNIFORMLY APPLIED BY ATC AND IS CREATING UNNECESSARY CONFUSION AMONG THE PLTS. THESE FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROB IN THIS CASE.

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.