Narrative:

I was on a VFR flight over a route I have flown several times over the last eight years. After departing my home airport in southeast PA; I obtained a clearance to transition through the philadelphia class B airspace at 5;500 ft and encountered no problems. The route of flight to the destination that I gave to the philadelphia controller was sbj fallz cmk khfd. The first new york controller I was handed off to was also given the same routing and altitude with no problem ('cleared through class B as requested'). Apparently; the first nyc controllers 'clearance' was not recognized by the second controller who directed me to go direct. That was a relatively minor heading change; however I had to input a different waypoint into my GPS (note: the airport and VORTAC are several miles apart. It appeared strange that such an apparently minor change was needed; but I followed the controller's direction. In my non-autopilot equipped aircraft (e.g.; no altitude hold) the busywork of inputting the new waypoint resulted in a 200 ft altitude increase. The controller gave me a lecture over the radio about the altitude excursion which I quickly corrected. That was fair; but the altitude excursion was caused by the unnecessary minor routing change (no apparent conflicting aircraft) after the routing had been approved by the two prior controllers (lack of coordination between controllers?). The controller may have been stressed out; if overload caused the stress; perhaps I shouldn't have been cleared through nyc class B this day. When handed off to the next nyc controller the frequency I heard and repeated back to the controller was 119.3 MHZ (I understand that ATC controllers are supposed to listen to the pilot's readback of frequencies to correct any errors rather than moving on to something else before the opportunity to correct their or the pilot's mistake is lost). I tried that frequency unsuccessfully and went back to the controller and he said 119.3 again; then I tried 119.3 again with no luck. Thinking I might have got the frequency wrong I tried 118.3 and was told by a tower it was a tower. I went back to the controller to ask the frequency again. This time the controller said 119.2 which worked. The controller then sent me above class B up to 7;500 ft with another lecture. I strongly suggest an ATC supervisor listen to the audio tape for an objective review. As a relatively experienced GA pilot and active flight instructor; I would never intentionally cause a problem. My opinion was that the ATC controller was stressed out on the day in question. I recognize the voice as a controller I had dealt with on previous occasion where he was helpful and not shoot-from-the-hip judgmental when the real possibility exists that he may have contributed to the miscommunication. Another dimension is the prior controllers should have way of being aware of the workload of controllers that are handing off to and; perhaps; not clearing someone through class B if it will overload the next controller. Had this resulted in denying a class B clearance; a simple navigational and/or altitude change would easily have been performed to 'remain clear of class bravo.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A pilot flying a single engine aircraft through EWR Class B airspace and talking with ATC; commented that TRACON Controllers on this particular day appeared stressed and reactive to a minor altitude deviation.

Narrative: I was on a VFR flight over a route I have flown several times over the last eight years. After departing my home airport in southeast PA; I obtained a clearance to transition through the Philadelphia Class B Airspace at 5;500 FT and encountered no problems. The route of flight to the destination that I gave to the Philadelphia Controller was SBJ FALLZ CMK KHFD. The first New York Controller I was handed off to was also given the same routing and altitude with no problem ('Cleared through Class B as requested'). Apparently; the first NYC Controllers 'clearance' was not recognized by the second Controller who directed me to go direct. That was a relatively minor heading change; however I had to input a different waypoint into my GPS (note: the airport and VORTAC are several miles apart. It appeared strange that such an apparently minor change was needed; but I followed the Controller's direction. In my non-autopilot equipped aircraft (e.g.; no altitude hold) the busywork of inputting the new waypoint resulted in a 200 FT altitude increase. The Controller gave me a lecture over the radio about the altitude excursion which I quickly corrected. That was fair; but the altitude excursion was caused by the unnecessary minor routing change (no apparent conflicting aircraft) after the routing had been approved by the two prior Controllers (lack of coordination between Controllers?). The Controller may have been stressed out; if overload caused the stress; perhaps I shouldn't have been cleared through NYC Class B this day. When handed off to the next NYC Controller the frequency I heard and repeated back to the Controller was 119.3 MHZ (I understand that ATC Controllers are supposed to listen to the pilot's readback of frequencies to correct any errors rather than moving on to something else before the opportunity to correct their or the pilot's mistake is lost). I tried that frequency unsuccessfully and went back to the Controller and he said 119.3 again; then I tried 119.3 again with no luck. Thinking I might have got the frequency wrong I tried 118.3 and was told by a Tower it was a Tower. I went back to the Controller to ask the frequency again. This time the Controller said 119.2 which worked. The Controller then sent me above Class B up to 7;500 FT with another lecture. I strongly suggest an ATC Supervisor listen to the audio tape for an objective review. As a relatively experienced GA pilot and active flight instructor; I would never intentionally cause a problem. My opinion was that the ATC Controller was stressed out on the day in question. I recognize the voice as a Controller I had dealt with on previous occasion where he was helpful and NOT shoot-from-the-hip judgmental when the real possibility exists that he may have contributed to the miscommunication. Another dimension is the prior Controllers should have way of being aware of the workload of Controllers that are handing off to and; perhaps; NOT clearing someone through Class B if it will overload the next Controller. Had this resulted in denying a Class B clearance; a simple navigational and/or altitude change would easily have been performed to 'remain clear of Class Bravo.'

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.