Narrative:

My radar associate took a manual hand off from N90 catskill controller on aircraft X. He told me the aircraft was VFR to ptk. I started the track and put in a VFR flight plan. Aircraft X checked on frequency climbing. I verified the type and destination; as my D side was not sure of the information he just took. I had traffic landing swf opposite direction descending to 110. At that time aircraft X's altitude indicated VFR/100. I asked aircraft X what altitude he was climbing to; so I could determine if I would need to vector one or both of the aircraft; or just call traffic. Aircraft X responded that he was level at 100. I asked him if he was VFR or IFR. He stated that he was IFR. I then cleared him to ptk via direct and maintain 100. I then asked him if he got the IFR clearance from new york. He replied; 'no I did not; I mean yes I got the clearance from new york'. My D side then called N90 and asked them what kind of clearance aircraft X had; IFR or VFR? N90 (from what I could hear my D side say; and what he told me) said that he was VFR. Recommendation; the automation between N90 and ZBW needs to be fixed. It is very difficult to initiate/accept hand offs to/from N90 on aircraft that get airborne clearances. It seems that if the aircraft has filed a flight plan in the NAS; the automation will work; but once airborne it is very difficult. If the automation between N90 and ZBW was fixed this would not happen; as a flight data block would indicate the type of flight plan the aircraft is on.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZBW controller described a potential conlfict event when the flight plan status; IFR or VFR; was uncertain; the reporter claiming the automation between N90 and ZBW needs to be fixed to reduce these types of situations.

Narrative: My RADAR Associate took a manual hand off from N90 Catskill Controller on Aircraft X. He told me the aircraft was VFR to PTK. I started the track and put in a VFR flight plan. Aircraft X checked on frequency climbing. I verified the type and destination; as my D Side was not sure of the information he just took. I had traffic landing SWF opposite direction descending to 110. At that time Aircraft X's altitude indicated VFR/100. I asked Aircraft X what altitude he was climbing to; so I could determine if I would need to vector one or both of the aircraft; or just call traffic. Aircraft X responded that he was level at 100. I asked him if he was VFR or IFR. He stated that he was IFR. I then cleared him to PTK via direct and maintain 100. I then asked him if he got the IFR clearance from New York. He replied; 'No I did not; I mean yes I got the clearance from New York'. My D side then called N90 and asked them what kind of clearance Aircraft X had; IFR or VFR? N90 (from what I could hear my D side say; and what he told me) said that he was VFR. Recommendation; the automation between N90 and ZBW needs to be fixed. It is very difficult to initiate/accept hand offs to/from N90 on aircraft that get airborne clearances. It seems that if the aircraft has filed a flight plan in the NAS; the automation will work; but once airborne it is very difficult. If the automation between N90 and ZBW was fixed this would not happen; as a flight data block would indicate the type of flight plan the aircraft is on.

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.