|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||atc facility : mia|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 6000|
msl bound upper : 6000
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : pbi|
artcc : zkc
|Operator||general aviation : instructional|
|Make Model Name||Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng|
|Flight Phase||cruise other|
|Route In Use||enroute : on vectors|
enroute airway : mia
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 50|
flight time total : 1200
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : approach|
|Qualification||controller : radar|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||controller : issued new clearance|
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Operational Deviation|
Departed vrb southbound for tamiami. Contacted ZMA south of vfb and requested and received VFR flight following at 7500' to tamiami. Later we were switched to palm beach approach. Decided IFR would be better than VFR, so requested IFR from palm beach. Palm beach cleared us to tamiami via radar vectors and told us to descend to 6000' and turn to 270 degrees. Later we were told to turn to 180 degrees and contact mia approach. We were in IMC conditions when we contacted mia approach. Upon contact we were told to maintain VFR. When we reported unable to maintain VFR we were told to climb, descend, turn or whatever was required to maintain VFR. We said we were IFR in IMC and unable to maintain VFR. He said we were VFR, and that palm beach had cancelled our IFR. We said 'negative, negative.' at this point he accepted us back as IFR and the flight concluded uneventfully. This situation was probably the result of the poor interface between approach and center computers. It is likely to recur until approach can easily change flight plans in the center computer. I would guess that our VFR flight plan given to center was never updated by palm beach causing mia approach to see us as VFR.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ON INITIAL CONTACT CTLR TOLD SMT TO MAINTAIN VFR WHILE ACTUAL FLYING CONDITIONS WERE IMC AND ACFT RECEIVED IFR CLRNC FROM PREVIOUS CTLR.
Narrative: DEPARTED VRB SBND FOR TAMIAMI. CONTACTED ZMA S OF VFB AND REQUESTED AND RECEIVED VFR FLT FOLLOWING AT 7500' TO TAMIAMI. LATER WE WERE SWITCHED TO PALM BEACH APCH. DECIDED IFR WOULD BE BETTER THAN VFR, SO REQUESTED IFR FROM PALM BEACH. PALM BEACH CLRED US TO TAMIAMI VIA RADAR VECTORS AND TOLD US TO DSND TO 6000' AND TURN TO 270 DEGS. LATER WE WERE TOLD TO TURN TO 180 DEGS AND CONTACT MIA APCH. WE WERE IN IMC CONDITIONS WHEN WE CONTACTED MIA APCH. UPON CONTACT WE WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN VFR. WHEN WE RPTED UNABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR WE WERE TOLD TO CLB, DSND, TURN OR WHATEVER WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN VFR. WE SAID WE WERE IFR IN IMC AND UNABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR. HE SAID WE WERE VFR, AND THAT PALM BEACH HAD CANCELLED OUR IFR. WE SAID 'NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE.' AT THIS POINT HE ACCEPTED US BACK AS IFR AND THE FLT CONCLUDED UNEVENTFULLY. THIS SITUATION WAS PROBABLY THE RESULT OF THE POOR INTERFACE BTWN APCH AND CENTER COMPUTERS. IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR UNTIL APCH CAN EASILY CHANGE FLT PLANS IN THE CENTER COMPUTER. I WOULD GUESS THAT OUR VFR FLT PLAN GIVEN TO CENTER WAS NEVER UPDATED BY PALM BEACH CAUSING MIA APCH TO SEE US AS VFR.
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.