Narrative:

In 4/88 we departed 7MY (burlington county, mount holly, nj) for IFR flight to york, PA. We departed 7MY VFR and were going to pick up an IFR clearance with mc guire approach, the controling agency for that airspace. We contacted them immediately after departure and told them we needed to pick up an IFR clearance to thv. They gave us a transponder code and told me to stand by and they would be right back with the clearance. The lady returned a few moments later with a full route clearance to york, PA, all except an altitude. I thought this to be strange and asked the controller twice to verify an altitude. She finally returned my call by telling me to contact phl approach for my IFR clearance that I was now in their airspace. I said hold on to the controller that I already had an IFR clearance from her. She again insisted that I contact phl approach. So, I contacted phl approach expecting some type of handoff and there was none. They had no idea who I was and wanted to know why I was in their airspace (TCA) west/O a clearance. I told them I had received a clearance from mc guire approach and could not understand why they did not hand me off to phl. Phl approach gave me a new transponder code and told me to maintain VFR until they could get back with me. They did in a few mins and gave me an IFR clearance almost identical to what mc guire approach had given me the rest of the flight proceeded west/O incident. Upon reaching york, PA, I contacted phl approach on landline about the incident to see what happened to create a problem like this. The supervisor at phl had already contacted mc guire approach and received information from them that was very contradictory to the actual facts. In conclusion, I believe the problem lies in aircraft handoff procedures, especially around busy ATC areas involving 2 different approach controls. The approach controller that has the aircraft at the time needs to keep them out of heavy traffic areas until there is positive acceptance from the agency that's receiving the aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: phl TRACON supervisor said mc guire indicated that the pilot had refused a departure release time over the telephone and was trying to rush his IFR clearance by making takeoff VFR and filing in the air. Report said he could not find a number to use for landline contact and that he did not call prior to takeoff. Wri initially gave a VFR mode C squawk but amended it with the clearance still giving no altitude. Reporter thinks the proximity of the TCA and speed of his aircraft were also factors.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPR SMT UNAUTH PENETRATION OF TCA. INTERCOORD BETWEEN MC GUIRE AND PHL TRACON WAS A FACTOR.

Narrative: IN 4/88 WE DEPARTED 7MY (BURLINGTON COUNTY, MOUNT HOLLY, NJ) FOR IFR FLT TO YORK, PA. WE DEPARTED 7MY VFR AND WERE GOING TO PICK UP AN IFR CLRNC WITH MC GUIRE APCH, THE CTLING AGENCY FOR THAT AIRSPACE. WE CONTACTED THEM IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEP AND TOLD THEM WE NEEDED TO PICK UP AN IFR CLRNC TO THV. THEY GAVE US A TRANSPONDER CODE AND TOLD ME TO STAND BY AND THEY WOULD BE RIGHT BACK WITH THE CLRNC. THE LADY RETURNED A FEW MOMENTS LATER WITH A FULL ROUTE CLRNC TO YORK, PA, ALL EXCEPT AN ALT. I THOUGHT THIS TO BE STRANGE AND ASKED THE CTLR TWICE TO VERIFY AN ALT. SHE FINALLY RETURNED MY CALL BY TELLING ME TO CONTACT PHL APCH FOR MY IFR CLRNC THAT I WAS NOW IN THEIR AIRSPACE. I SAID HOLD ON TO THE CTLR THAT I ALREADY HAD AN IFR CLRNC FROM HER. SHE AGAIN INSISTED THAT I CONTACT PHL APCH. SO, I CONTACTED PHL APCH EXPECTING SOME TYPE OF HDOF AND THERE WAS NONE. THEY HAD NO IDEA WHO I WAS AND WANTED TO KNOW WHY I WAS IN THEIR AIRSPACE (TCA) W/O A CLRNC. I TOLD THEM I HAD RECEIVED A CLRNC FROM MC GUIRE APCH AND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DID NOT HAND ME OFF TO PHL. PHL APCH GAVE ME A NEW TRANSPONDER CODE AND TOLD ME TO MAINTAIN VFR UNTIL THEY COULD GET BACK WITH ME. THEY DID IN A FEW MINS AND GAVE ME AN IFR CLRNC ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT MC GUIRE APCH HAD GIVEN ME THE REST OF THE FLT PROCEEDED W/O INCIDENT. UPON REACHING YORK, PA, I CONTACTED PHL APCH ON LANDLINE ABOUT THE INCIDENT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO CREATE A PROB LIKE THIS. THE SUPVR AT PHL HAD ALREADY CONTACTED MC GUIRE APCH AND RECEIVED INFO FROM THEM THAT WAS VERY CONTRADICTORY TO THE ACTUAL FACTS. IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE THE PROB LIES IN ACFT HDOF PROCS, ESPECIALLY AROUND BUSY ATC AREAS INVOLVING 2 DIFFERENT APCH CTLS. THE APCH CTLR THAT HAS THE ACFT AT THE TIME NEEDS TO KEEP THEM OUT OF HEAVY TFC AREAS UNTIL THERE IS POSITIVE ACCEPTANCE FROM THE AGENCY THAT'S RECEIVING THE ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: PHL TRACON SUPVR SAID MC GUIRE INDICATED THAT THE PLT HAD REFUSED A DEP RELEASE TIME OVER THE TELEPHONE AND WAS TRYING TO RUSH HIS IFR CLRNC BY MAKING TKOF VFR AND FILING IN THE AIR. REPORT SAID HE COULD NOT FIND A NUMBER TO USE FOR LANDLINE CONTACT AND THAT HE DID NOT CALL PRIOR TO TKOF. WRI INITIALLY GAVE A VFR MODE C SQUAWK BUT AMENDED IT WITH THE CLRNC STILL GIVING NO ALT. RPTR THINKS THE PROX OF THE TCA AND SPD OF HIS ACFT WERE ALSO FACTORS.

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.