VFR restriction given by controller in error while flight was in IMC.

Attributes
ACN	87124
Time
Date	198805
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sjc
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 8000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zoa tracon : oak
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Small Transport
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	approach : straight in enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 15000
ASRS Report	87124
Person 2
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Intra Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

We asked for an IFR clearance for the ILS into san jose. Oakland center cleared us to descend to 8000' on a 360 heading. We advised that in order to comply we would have to have a clearance soon. We were then cleared to san jose, radar vectors for the ILS, asked for a good rate of descent (we gave 3500'/min) and an intercept for the ILS. We were then cleared and an intercept for the ILS. We were then cleared to intercept the localizer and maintain 8000' and handed off to bay approach on 120.1. Our speed at this point was 240 KTS indicated. On handoff we were told to turn right ot 360 degree, descend to 4000' and remain VFR. At this point we flew into solid IMC which we reported. The controller sounded really tense, for the remainder of an uneventful ILS to san jose. Problem: we had an IFR clearance from center but bay appeared to have no knowledge of it and issued vectors which put us in IMC before the 'remain VFR' part of his clearance. To our knowledge no hazard was caused but the potential does exist and causes some concern on our part. Especially in light of the obvious effect on the controller. The handling was as though we were student pilots. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter found out when he called the TRACON that the incident occurred because of a 'paperwork' problem in the TRACON. When reporter was inbound to sjc as a VFR flight receiving advisories from the center, this generated a flight progress strip at the approach controller position that showed the flight to be VFR. When reporter filed IFR about eighty miles from destination, another flight progress strip was generated showing the flight to be IFR. Both strips were at the appropriate position in the TRACON. The controller picked up the wrong strip during the handoff, and thought the aircraft was VFR. With the high speed of reporter's aircraft, the controller's first thought was to vector for spacing off the localizer. The VFR restriction given to reporter was given because controller thought the flight was VFR. No loss of sep occurred and reporter's aircraft did not get low enough to cause terrain conflict. As soon as reporter told controller he was in clds, controller thought pilot had entered clds without clearance. This was the reason reporter was asked to call TRACON after landing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VFR RESTRICTION GIVEN BY CTLR IN ERROR WHILE FLT WAS IN IMC.

Narrative: WE ASKED FOR AN IFR CLRNC FOR THE ILS INTO SAN JOSE. OAKLAND CENTER CLRED US TO DESCEND TO 8000' ON A 360 HEADING. WE ADVISED THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CLRNC SOON. WE WERE THEN CLRED TO SAN JOSE, RADAR VECTORS FOR THE ILS, ASKED FOR A GOOD RATE OF DESCENT (WE GAVE 3500'/MIN) AND AN INTERCEPT FOR THE ILS. WE WERE THEN CLRED AND AN INTERCEPT FOR THE ILS. WE WERE THEN CLRED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND MAINTAIN 8000' AND HANDED OFF TO BAY APCH ON 120.1. OUR SPEED AT THIS POINT WAS 240 KTS INDICATED. ON HANDOFF WE WERE TOLD TO TURN RIGHT OT 360 DEG, DESCEND TO 4000' AND REMAIN VFR. AT THIS POINT WE FLEW INTO SOLID IMC WHICH WE REPORTED. THE CTLR SOUNDED REALLY TENSE, FOR THE REMAINDER OF AN UNEVENTFUL ILS TO SAN JOSE. PROBLEM: WE HAD AN IFR CLRNC FROM CENTER BUT BAY APPEARED TO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT AND ISSUED VECTORS WHICH PUT US IN IMC BEFORE THE 'REMAIN VFR' PART OF HIS CLRNC. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE NO HAZARD WAS CAUSED BUT THE POTENTIAL DOES EXIST AND CAUSES SOME CONCERN ON OUR PART. ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE OBVIOUS EFFECT ON THE CTLR. THE HANDLING WAS AS THOUGH WE WERE STUDENT PLTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: RPTR FOUND OUT WHEN HE CALLED THE TRACON THAT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF A 'PAPERWORK' PROBLEM IN THE TRACON. WHEN RPTR WAS INBOUND TO SJC AS A VFR FLT RECEIVING ADVISORIES FROM THE CENTER, THIS GENERATED A FLT PROGRESS STRIP AT THE APCH CTLR POS THAT SHOWED THE FLT TO BE VFR. WHEN RPTR FILED IFR ABOUT EIGHTY MILES FROM DEST, ANOTHER FLT PROGRESS STRIP WAS GENERATED SHOWING THE FLT TO BE IFR. BOTH STRIPS WERE AT THE APPROPRIATE POS IN THE TRACON. THE CTLR PICKED UP THE WRONG STRIP DURING THE HANDOFF, AND THOUGHT THE ACFT WAS VFR. WITH THE HIGH SPEED OF RPTR'S ACFT, THE CTLR'S FIRST THOUGHT WAS TO VECTOR FOR SPACING OFF THE LOC. THE VFR RESTRICTION GIVEN TO RPTR WAS GIVEN BECAUSE CTLR THOUGHT THE FLT WAS VFR. NO LOSS OF SEP OCCURRED AND RPTR'S ACFT DID NOT GET LOW ENOUGH TO CAUSE TERRAIN CONFLICT. AS SOON AS RPTR TOLD CTLR HE WAS IN CLDS, CTLR THOUGHT PLT HAD ENTERED CLDS WITHOUT CLRNC. THIS WAS THE REASON RPTR WAS ASKED TO CALL TRACON AFTER LNDG.

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.