Narrative:

I was flying west; at 3000 ft MSL; from agc to phd; with an active VFR flight plan and flight following -- first from pit and then from akron-canton. WX obtained from internet source prior to flight reported/forecast increasing ceilings and lessening winds. Approaching phd; ceilings began to thicken and forward visibility began to decrease; however slant visibility to the ground remained good. Approximately 6 NM from phd; akron approach canceled radar services. I immediately went to squawk code 1200 and attempted to contact phd unicom on 122.8 for airport advisories. A cherokee on the ground reported the active runway as runway 32; and I announced I would enter a right upwind for runway 32 once I made visual contact with the field. Shortly thereafter; visual conditions below changed significantly -- first a few low passing clouds; and then zero visibility below. 2 aircraft preparing to depart runway 32 were advised by another aircraft of some low clouds west of the airport. At 3 NM east of phd; I began to experience total immersion in IMC. My altitude was between 2500-3000 ft MSL. I immediately initiated a 180 degree turn from a heading of 300 degrees to 120 degrees. Simultaneously; I re-contacted akron approach and 1) advised them of being unable to land at phd due to IMC; 2) asked them to close my active VFR flight plan; and 3) asked them for immediate assistance in filing an IFR flight plan for a return to agc. I had hoped for an immediate squawk code and radar services. Instead; akron approach referred me to cleveland FSS. I contacted cleveland FSS on 122.2 and spent several mins attempting to explain to them my current situation (in and out of IMC) and the details of my proposed flight plan. Cleveland FSS repeated my proposed flight plan wrong; had difficulty capturing my name; insisted on a calculated time en route to agc and appeared to think I was on the ground at phd; when I was actually in the air and in varying conditions -- none of them especially favorable. Eventually; cleveland FSS returned me to akron approach. Upon returning to akron approach; I was advised they didn't have my flight plan in the computer yet; and instructed me to turn to a heading of 360 degrees to avoid pittsburgh class B airspace. This took me back towards; or parallel to the WX I was trying to beat. My recent heading had been 120 degrees; taking me back to the hlg VOR where I had just come from and where conditions were good. At an altitude of 3000 ft MSL; I would have been below pittsburgh class B. After several mins; akron approach advised they weren't receiving my transponder and without such; they would be unable to assist me. I was advised to maintain VFR -- apparently they didn't understand I was already in and out of IMC that was worsening on their assigned heading of 360 degrees. After several more moments of cycling the transponder; checking circuit breakers and recycling the numbers; akron approach received my signal and instructed me to climb to 5000 ft and head direct hlg. Shortly thereafter; akron approach handed me off to pittsburgh approach on a frequency I was not familiar with. Upon contacting pit approach; they immediately advised me I was on the wrong frequency and to switch to the more appropriate frequency for my altitude; aircraft and flight plan. Pit approach gave me a descent to an altitude below the clouds and I finished my IFR flight in VMC making a visual approach to agc. Disappointments: VFR into IMC is unacceptable. I understand that and was surprised how quickly the conditions changed in the last few moments. Had I not had an instrument rating; I might have more critically evaluated the slowly changing conditions earlier and aborted the flight; but visibility to the ground was acceptable and my first contact with aircraft at phd appeared favorable. Once in trouble; I was very disappointed in the response of akron approach; and the difficulty I experienced with cleveland FSS in filing a flight plan. I continually re-evaluate my communication. Was it my failure to describe my situation? I don't think so. Short of declaring an emergency; I couldn't believe they abandoned me to FSS without radar or radio contact. The continual questioning from FSS about my proposed route; how to spell my name; and what void time I wanted was frustrating at a time I was in immediate need of radar services and directional guidance. And; upon return to akron approach; being told to maintain VFR (which is hard to do when you are already in IMC) was not of any help in my current situation. I wish I could review the taped xmissions with the ATC controllers in an attempt to assist me (and them) in understanding where the confusion occurred and how to improve our communications in the future. Perhaps my radio transmission signal was poor? Perhaps I should have been more assertive and refused to switch to cleveland FSS and simply demanded an immediate squawk code and radar services. It seems that if this were to happen again to me or anyone else; the process of getting radar services and an approved flight plan should be expedited. My first experience in actual single pilot IFR was tolerable; but I can more clearly than ever see how a VFR pilot without instrument training could easily auger in from the combined confusion of the aircraft environment and the added pressure from the clumsiness of the ATC/FSS environment in this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PLT IN C152 VFR NEAR PHD INADVERTENTLY ENCOUNTERS IMC AND HAS DIFFICULTY OBTAINING ASSISTANCE FROM ATC.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING W; AT 3000 FT MSL; FROM AGC TO PHD; WITH AN ACTIVE VFR FLT PLAN AND FLT FOLLOWING -- FIRST FROM PIT AND THEN FROM AKRON-CANTON. WX OBTAINED FROM INTERNET SOURCE PRIOR TO FLT RPTED/FORECAST INCREASING CEILINGS AND LESSENING WINDS. APCHING PHD; CEILINGS BEGAN TO THICKEN AND FORWARD VISIBILITY BEGAN TO DECREASE; HOWEVER SLANT VISIBILITY TO THE GND REMAINED GOOD. APPROX 6 NM FROM PHD; AKRON APCH CANCELED RADAR SVCS. I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO SQUAWK CODE 1200 AND ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT PHD UNICOM ON 122.8 FOR ARPT ADVISORIES. A CHEROKEE ON THE GND RPTED THE ACTIVE RWY AS RWY 32; AND I ANNOUNCED I WOULD ENTER A R UPWIND FOR RWY 32 ONCE I MADE VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE FIELD. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; VISUAL CONDITIONS BELOW CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY -- FIRST A FEW LOW PASSING CLOUDS; AND THEN ZERO VISIBILITY BELOW. 2 ACFT PREPARING TO DEPART RWY 32 WERE ADVISED BY ANOTHER ACFT OF SOME LOW CLOUDS W OF THE ARPT. AT 3 NM E OF PHD; I BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE TOTAL IMMERSION IN IMC. MY ALT WAS BTWN 2500-3000 FT MSL. I IMMEDIATELY INITIATED A 180 DEG TURN FROM A HDG OF 300 DEGS TO 120 DEGS. SIMULTANEOUSLY; I RE-CONTACTED AKRON APCH AND 1) ADVISED THEM OF BEING UNABLE TO LAND AT PHD DUE TO IMC; 2) ASKED THEM TO CLOSE MY ACTIVE VFR FLT PLAN; AND 3) ASKED THEM FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE IN FILING AN IFR FLT PLAN FOR A RETURN TO AGC. I HAD HOPED FOR AN IMMEDIATE SQUAWK CODE AND RADAR SVCS. INSTEAD; AKRON APCH REFERRED ME TO CLEVELAND FSS. I CONTACTED CLEVELAND FSS ON 122.2 AND SPENT SEVERAL MINS ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN TO THEM MY CURRENT SIT (IN AND OUT OF IMC) AND THE DETAILS OF MY PROPOSED FLT PLAN. CLEVELAND FSS REPEATED MY PROPOSED FLT PLAN WRONG; HAD DIFFICULTY CAPTURING MY NAME; INSISTED ON A CALCULATED TIME ENRTE TO AGC AND APPEARED TO THINK I WAS ON THE GND AT PHD; WHEN I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE AIR AND IN VARYING CONDITIONS -- NONE OF THEM ESPECIALLY FAVORABLE. EVENTUALLY; CLEVELAND FSS RETURNED ME TO AKRON APCH. UPON RETURNING TO AKRON APCH; I WAS ADVISED THEY DIDN'T HAVE MY FLT PLAN IN THE COMPUTER YET; AND INSTRUCTED ME TO TURN TO A HDG OF 360 DEGS TO AVOID PITTSBURGH CLASS B AIRSPACE. THIS TOOK ME BACK TOWARDS; OR PARALLEL TO THE WX I WAS TRYING TO BEAT. MY RECENT HDG HAD BEEN 120 DEGS; TAKING ME BACK TO THE HLG VOR WHERE I HAD JUST COME FROM AND WHERE CONDITIONS WERE GOOD. AT AN ALT OF 3000 FT MSL; I WOULD HAVE BEEN BELOW PITTSBURGH CLASS B. AFTER SEVERAL MINS; AKRON APCH ADVISED THEY WEREN'T RECEIVING MY XPONDER AND WITHOUT SUCH; THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO ASSIST ME. I WAS ADVISED TO MAINTAIN VFR -- APPARENTLY THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND I WAS ALREADY IN AND OUT OF IMC THAT WAS WORSENING ON THEIR ASSIGNED HDG OF 360 DEGS. AFTER SEVERAL MORE MOMENTS OF CYCLING THE XPONDER; CHKING CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND RECYCLING THE NUMBERS; AKRON APCH RECEIVED MY SIGNAL AND INSTRUCTED ME TO CLB TO 5000 FT AND HEAD DIRECT HLG. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; AKRON APCH HANDED ME OFF TO PITTSBURGH APCH ON A FREQ I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH. UPON CONTACTING PIT APCH; THEY IMMEDIATELY ADVISED ME I WAS ON THE WRONG FREQ AND TO SWITCH TO THE MORE APPROPRIATE FREQ FOR MY ALT; ACFT AND FLT PLAN. PIT APCH GAVE ME A DSCNT TO AN ALT BELOW THE CLOUDS AND I FINISHED MY IFR FLT IN VMC MAKING A VISUAL APCH TO AGC. DISAPPOINTMENTS: VFR INTO IMC IS UNACCEPTABLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND WAS SURPRISED HOW QUICKLY THE CONDITIONS CHANGED IN THE LAST FEW MOMENTS. HAD I NOT HAD AN INST RATING; I MIGHT HAVE MORE CRITICALLY EVALUATED THE SLOWLY CHANGING CONDITIONS EARLIER AND ABORTED THE FLT; BUT VISIBILITY TO THE GND WAS ACCEPTABLE AND MY FIRST CONTACT WITH ACFT AT PHD APPEARED FAVORABLE. ONCE IN TROUBLE; I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE RESPONSE OF AKRON APCH; AND THE DIFFICULTY I EXPERIENCED WITH CLEVELAND FSS IN FILING A FLT PLAN. I CONTINUALLY RE-EVALUATE MY COM. WAS IT MY FAILURE TO DESCRIBE MY SIT? I DON'T THINK SO. SHORT OF DECLARING AN EMER; I COULDN'T BELIEVE THEY ABANDONED ME TO FSS WITHOUT RADAR OR RADIO CONTACT. THE CONTINUAL QUESTIONING FROM FSS ABOUT MY PROPOSED RTE; HOW TO SPELL MY NAME; AND WHAT VOID TIME I WANTED WAS FRUSTRATING AT A TIME I WAS IN IMMEDIATE NEED OF RADAR SVCS AND DIRECTIONAL GUIDANCE. AND; UPON RETURN TO AKRON APCH; BEING TOLD TO MAINTAIN VFR (WHICH IS HARD TO DO WHEN YOU ARE ALREADY IN IMC) WAS NOT OF ANY HELP IN MY CURRENT SIT. I WISH I COULD REVIEW THE TAPED XMISSIONS WITH THE ATC CTLRS IN AN ATTEMPT TO ASSIST ME (AND THEM) IN UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE CONFUSION OCCURRED AND HOW TO IMPROVE OUR COMS IN THE FUTURE. PERHAPS MY RADIO XMISSION SIGNAL WAS POOR? PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ASSERTIVE AND REFUSED TO SWITCH TO CLEVELAND FSS AND SIMPLY DEMANDED AN IMMEDIATE SQUAWK CODE AND RADAR SVCS. IT SEEMS THAT IF THIS WERE TO HAPPEN AGAIN TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE; THE PROCESS OF GETTING RADAR SVCS AND AN APPROVED FLT PLAN SHOULD BE EXPEDITED. MY FIRST EXPERIENCE IN ACTUAL SINGLE PLT IFR WAS TOLERABLE; BUT I CAN MORE CLRLY THAN EVER SEE HOW A VFR PLT WITHOUT INST TRAINING COULD EASILY AUGER IN FROM THE COMBINED CONFUSION OF THE ACFT ENVIRONMENT AND THE ADDED PRESSURE FROM THE CLUMSINESS OF THE ATC/FSS ENVIRONMENT IN THIS SIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.