Narrative:

Small aircraft X was cleared out of 5b0 by bridgeport FSS by phone after a lengthy wait via flight plan route (direct orw direct wst), climb and maintain 3000', expect 5000' in 10 mins, squawk XXXX, contact quonset on 119.45. The time now is XXXX and clearance void if not off by XA18 local. We were off at XA18 and followed clearance. Although we heard quonset (extremely busy), but had no response. Came out of the cloud tops at 4300' to which we had climbed since leaving 3000' at precisely XA28. ATC acknowledged small aircraft X, 'say your altitude, you were assigned 3000', maintain VFR at 4500'.' since when can ATC cancel an IFR clearance? I subsequently talked to quonset supervisor who apologized profusely, but: this is a serious mistake (and I make plenty myself), but does it make sense to have to call FSS, who has to call bradley (cognizant departure), who has to call quonset, who has to agree to accept and then bdl has to relay to FSS, who clears the pilot? Any message going through that many hands will get screwed up. System should have pilot get clearance from appropriate controller!!!!! Pilots who bust clrncs may get violated and fined. What do controllers get? I honestly think that too much is covered up lest the press and congress get at it. I think we need more pilot and controller interchange and sharing of problems and experience. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter was asked about the fact that contact was never established with departure control although reporter could hear the controller talking to other aircraft. Reporter stated that he had attempted contact 'a number of times' in the 10 mins, but never got an acknowledgement from ATC. Another interesting question was why flight only proceeded approximately 8 mi during the more than 10 mins after takeoff until he made contact with ATC passing through 4500'. Reporter stated he did not know why they didn't fly farther in 10 mins, and speculated that there must have been strong headwinds. Reporter has had a letter from the ATC facility involved informing him that he was correct to climb after 10 mins passed and that the controller was wrong in telling him to maintain VFR at 4500'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT CLIMBED TO 'EXPECT' ALT AFTER 10 MINUTES ELAPSED AS REQUIRED BY ATC CLRNC.

Narrative: SMA X WAS CLRED OUT OF 5B0 BY BRIDGEPORT FSS BY PHONE AFTER A LENGTHY WAIT VIA FLT PLAN ROUTE (DIRECT ORW DIRECT WST), CLB AND MAINTAIN 3000', EXPECT 5000' IN 10 MINS, SQUAWK XXXX, CONTACT QUONSET ON 119.45. THE TIME NOW IS XXXX AND CLRNC VOID IF NOT OFF BY XA18 LCL. WE WERE OFF AT XA18 AND FOLLOWED CLRNC. ALTHOUGH WE HEARD QUONSET (EXTREMELY BUSY), BUT HAD NO RESPONSE. CAME OUT OF THE CLOUD TOPS AT 4300' TO WHICH WE HAD CLBED SINCE LEAVING 3000' AT PRECISELY XA28. ATC ACKNOWLEDGED SMA X, 'SAY YOUR ALT, YOU WERE ASSIGNED 3000', MAINTAIN VFR AT 4500'.' SINCE WHEN CAN ATC CANCEL AN IFR CLRNC? I SUBSEQUENTLY TALKED TO QUONSET SUPVR WHO APOLOGIZED PROFUSELY, BUT: THIS IS A SERIOUS MISTAKE (AND I MAKE PLENTY MYSELF), BUT DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE TO CALL FSS, WHO HAS TO CALL BRADLEY (COGNIZANT DEP), WHO HAS TO CALL QUONSET, WHO HAS TO AGREE TO ACCEPT AND THEN BDL HAS TO RELAY TO FSS, WHO CLRS THE PLT? ANY MESSAGE GOING THROUGH THAT MANY HANDS WILL GET SCREWED UP. SYS SHOULD HAVE PLT GET CLRNC FROM APPROPRIATE CTLR!!!!! PLTS WHO BUST CLRNCS MAY GET VIOLATED AND FINED. WHAT DO CTLRS GET? I HONESTLY THINK THAT TOO MUCH IS COVERED UP LEST THE PRESS AND CONGRESS GET AT IT. I THINK WE NEED MORE PLT AND CTLR INTERCHANGE AND SHARING OF PROBS AND EXPERIENCE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR WAS ASKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT CONTACT WAS NEVER ESTABLISHED WITH DEP CTL ALTHOUGH RPTR COULD HEAR THE CTLR TALKING TO OTHER ACFT. RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD ATTEMPTED CONTACT 'A NUMBER OF TIMES' IN THE 10 MINS, BUT NEVER GOT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM ATC. ANOTHER INTERESTING QUESTION WAS WHY FLT ONLY PROCEEDED APPROX 8 MI DURING THE MORE THAN 10 MINS AFTER TKOF UNTIL HE MADE CONTACT WITH ATC PASSING THROUGH 4500'. RPTR STATED HE DID NOT KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FLY FARTHER IN 10 MINS, AND SPECULATED THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN STRONG HEADWINDS. RPTR HAS HAD A LETTER FROM THE ATC FAC INVOLVED INFORMING HIM THAT HE WAS CORRECT TO CLB AFTER 10 MINS PASSED AND THAT THE CTLR WAS WRONG IN TELLING HIM TO MAINTAIN VFR AT 4500'.

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.