Narrative:

Prior to departure from gpt, a squawk was issued to our aircraft. While climbing out from the airfield, departure assigned 2500 ft with the understanding that our aircraft was en route to the local training area. Upon arrival to the training area, we began conducting level turns to familiarize me with the aircraft. Shortly after, we began to conduct stalls to familiarize me with the stall characteristics of the aircraft. Shortly after, we received a call from departure control asking our altitude. We responded '2000 ft.' he then informed us to maintain 2500 ft. We replied to his call and complied by climbing back to 2500 ft. After we requested a block between 1500-2500 ft, ATC denied this request, then we requested a block between 2500-3500 ft. This was approved. Shortly afterward, ATC asked if we had 'something to write with.' we responded and he passed a number to call. After landing, I called. He informed me that he was filing a pilot deviation report on me. I asked why. He said because I descended below 2500 ft. I informed him that we were in class east airspace and that the PIC of the aircraft was responsible for separation under VFR conditions, and though it is 'good practice' to do so, a VFR pilot in class east airspace -- while receiving VFR flight advisories -- is not obligated to comply with ATC instructions. He insisted that I was wrong and that he would report this violation. I informed him that I was not the PIC of the aircraft. He asked me who was, and I refused to tell him. He then informed me that he would file this violation against me and hung up the phone on me. I called him back and demanded he let me speak to his supervisor. He then informed me he was the supervisor. I insisted and he again refused. I repeated the request again and he finally produced a telephone number. Both myself and the controller should have acted more professionally on the radio during flight. I am still trying to find out the legal status of a VFR aircraft in class east airspace. It is my belief that this is a gray area in the far's. I believe that this question should be clarified by the FAA. This clarification would result in a better understanding by both pilot and ATC. This understanding should avoid 'hostile' communications between pilots and ATC. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was counseled by FSDO and issued a warning. Reporter advised that maneuvers and altitude change was conducted south of interstate 10 in and around st louis bay, which he and the pilot thought was outside the gpt TRSA.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE23 PAX, OPERATING RADIO, GETS INTO VERBAL CONFLICT WITH GPT DEP CTLR ABOUT UNCOORD ALT DSCNT WHILE OPERATING IN GPT TRSA AIRSPACE.

Narrative: PRIOR TO DEP FROM GPT, A SQUAWK WAS ISSUED TO OUR ACFT. WHILE CLBING OUT FROM THE AIRFIELD, DEP ASSIGNED 2500 FT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR ACFT WAS ENRTE TO THE LCL TRAINING AREA. UPON ARR TO THE TRAINING AREA, WE BEGAN CONDUCTING LEVEL TURNS TO FAMILIARIZE ME WITH THE ACFT. SHORTLY AFTER, WE BEGAN TO CONDUCT STALLS TO FAMILIARIZE ME WITH THE STALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACFT. SHORTLY AFTER, WE RECEIVED A CALL FROM DEP CTL ASKING OUR ALT. WE RESPONDED '2000 FT.' HE THEN INFORMED US TO MAINTAIN 2500 FT. WE REPLIED TO HIS CALL AND COMPLIED BY CLBING BACK TO 2500 FT. AFTER WE REQUESTED A BLOCK BTWN 1500-2500 FT, ATC DENIED THIS REQUEST, THEN WE REQUESTED A BLOCK BTWN 2500-3500 FT. THIS WAS APPROVED. SHORTLY AFTERWARD, ATC ASKED IF WE HAD 'SOMETHING TO WRITE WITH.' WE RESPONDED AND HE PASSED A NUMBER TO CALL. AFTER LNDG, I CALLED. HE INFORMED ME THAT HE WAS FILING A PLTDEV RPT ON ME. I ASKED WHY. HE SAID BECAUSE I DSNDED BELOW 2500 FT. I INFORMED HIM THAT WE WERE IN CLASS E AIRSPACE AND THAT THE PIC OF THE ACFT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SEPARATION UNDER VFR CONDITIONS, AND THOUGH IT IS 'GOOD PRACTICE' TO DO SO, A VFR PLT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE -- WHILE RECEIVING VFR FLT ADVISORIES -- IS NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPLY WITH ATC INSTRUCTIONS. HE INSISTED THAT I WAS WRONG AND THAT HE WOULD RPT THIS VIOLATION. I INFORMED HIM THAT I WAS NOT THE PIC OF THE ACFT. HE ASKED ME WHO WAS, AND I REFUSED TO TELL HIM. HE THEN INFORMED ME THAT HE WOULD FILE THIS VIOLATION AGAINST ME AND HUNG UP THE PHONE ON ME. I CALLED HIM BACK AND DEMANDED HE LET ME SPEAK TO HIS SUPVR. HE THEN INFORMED ME HE WAS THE SUPVR. I INSISTED AND HE AGAIN REFUSED. I REPEATED THE REQUEST AGAIN AND HE FINALLY PRODUCED A TELEPHONE NUMBER. BOTH MYSELF AND THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE ACTED MORE PROFESSIONALLY ON THE RADIO DURING FLT. I AM STILL TRYING TO FIND OUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF A VFR ACFT IN CLASS E AIRSPACE. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THIS IS A GRAY AREA IN THE FAR'S. I BELIEVE THAT THIS QUESTION SHOULD BE CLARIFIED BY THE FAA. THIS CLARIFICATION WOULD RESULT IN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING BY BOTH PLT AND ATC. THIS UNDERSTANDING SHOULD AVOID 'HOSTILE' COMS BTWN PLTS AND ATC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS COUNSELED BY FSDO AND ISSUED A WARNING. RPTR ADVISED THAT MANEUVERS AND ALT CHANGE WAS CONDUCTED S OF INTERSTATE 10 IN AND AROUND ST LOUIS BAY, WHICH HE AND THE PLT THOUGHT WAS OUTSIDE THE GPT TRSA.

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.