Narrative:

Route of flight was mmu direct ewr direct jfk. Leaving mmu air traffic area, our position was about 2 mi wnw of ridge line (which is about 7 mi west of ewr). I called ewr TCA, was acknowledged. I stated our position and intentions and level at 1500'. Controller responded with a squawk # and identify, which was complied with. Controller was busy handling several other aircraft. Approximately 1 min later, controller came back with, 'I guess TCA clearance means nothing, but you are cleared into TCA, over runway 4 #south, on course to jfk.' I felt that once contact was made and controller knew our intentions and that a squawk and identify was given, that a clearance was imminent. About 1 min later (after the identify) was when the TCA remark was made, and that we were 3 mi inside the TCA (I don't believe it was that far). If the controller could not handle us at that moment, I feel he should have said to remain clear. I have been flying ny TCA for approximately 17 yrs, and it was been an operating practice that once contact was made and intentions known and squawk and identify made, that a clearance is imminent. Flying ny TCA there has always been a good rapport between pilots and controllers--one of cooperation and courtesy (that I hope will go on), and I think safety-wise, a cooperative and courteous atmosphere is a whole lot better than one where everyone is paranoid. If a controller cannot handle an aircraft at the moment of call-up, then he should state to remain clear and not issue a squawk and identify. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter does not question the fact that he was in the TCA west/O clearance. FAA has taken no action on the incident. In the past, when issued a squawk code, that was generally accepted a clearance into the TCA. Will be more specific in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ASSUMED WAS CLEARED INTO TCA WHEN SQUAWK CODE AND COM WITH APCH CTLR ESTABLISHED.

Narrative: RTE OF FLT WAS MMU DIRECT EWR DIRECT JFK. LEAVING MMU ATA, OUR POS WAS ABOUT 2 MI WNW OF RIDGE LINE (WHICH IS ABOUT 7 MI W OF EWR). I CALLED EWR TCA, WAS ACKNOWLEDGED. I STATED OUR POS AND INTENTIONS AND LEVEL AT 1500'. CTLR RESPONDED WITH A SQUAWK # AND IDENT, WHICH WAS COMPLIED WITH. CTLR WAS BUSY HANDLING SEVERAL OTHER ACFT. APPROX 1 MIN LATER, CTLR CAME BACK WITH, 'I GUESS TCA CLRNC MEANS NOTHING, BUT YOU ARE CLRED INTO TCA, OVER RWY 4 #S, ON COURSE TO JFK.' I FELT THAT ONCE CONTACT WAS MADE AND CTLR KNEW OUR INTENTIONS AND THAT A SQUAWK AND IDENT WAS GIVEN, THAT A CLRNC WAS IMMINENT. ABOUT 1 MIN LATER (AFTER THE IDENT) WAS WHEN THE TCA REMARK WAS MADE, AND THAT WE WERE 3 MI INSIDE THE TCA (I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS THAT FAR). IF THE CTLR COULD NOT HANDLE US AT THAT MOMENT, I FEEL HE SHOULD HAVE SAID TO REMAIN CLR. I HAVE BEEN FLYING NY TCA FOR APPROX 17 YRS, AND IT WAS BEEN AN OPERATING PRACTICE THAT ONCE CONTACT WAS MADE AND INTENTIONS KNOWN AND SQUAWK AND IDENT MADE, THAT A CLRNC IS IMMINENT. FLYING NY TCA THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD RAPPORT BTWN PLTS AND CTLRS--ONE OF COOPERATION AND COURTESY (THAT I HOPE WILL GO ON), AND I THINK SAFETY-WISE, A COOPERATIVE AND COURTEOUS ATMOSPHERE IS A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN ONE WHERE EVERYONE IS PARANOID. IF A CTLR CANNOT HANDLE AN ACFT AT THE MOMENT OF CALL-UP, THEN HE SHOULD STATE TO REMAIN CLR AND NOT ISSUE A SQUAWK AND IDENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR DOES NOT QUESTION THE FACT THAT HE WAS IN THE TCA W/O CLRNC. FAA HAS TAKEN NO ACTION ON THE INCIDENT. IN THE PAST, WHEN ISSUED A SQUAWK CODE, THAT WAS GENERALLY ACCEPTED A CLRNC INTO THE TCA. WILL BE MORE SPECIFIC IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.