Narrative:

It was a crystal clear early morning. Upon departure from mmu, we immediately contacted ny approach using the same frequency that worked us inbound about 1 hour prior. My copilot tried to get a clearance as we climbed through about 1000 ft. The controller seemed to have difficulty understanding the request for 'instruments to fxe,' as my copilot has a strong accent. The controller's initial response was I'm trying to figure out why you didn't use the 800 number.' I jumped in and said 'we canceled on this frequency prior to landing' -- thinking that he was referring to our arrival and hadn't properly cancelled. He replied by stating that we should have used the 800 number to get our clearance on the ground prior to departing. I told him I wasn't aware of that requirement. This exchange took place while we were in a climbing left turn (after departing runway 5) heading to the first fix on our proposed flight plan. At about the same time we passed through 7000 ft, the controller hesitated for a moment as he was about to read our clearance to 'climb to 17000 ft cleared direct to the white intersection' and said, we 'had entered class B airspace without a clearance.' that may have been the case, but, had he not been so annoyed at the fact that we hadn't followed the customary procedure of getting the clearance on the ground, we would have had the clearance prior to entering class B airspace. I believe the contributing factors to this situation are as follows: language barrier between pilot and controller, unclr 'procedures' for obtaining clearance on the ground prior to departure after tower hours. This situation could have been avoided had the controller been quicker in issuing the clearance he obviously had in front of him the entire time -- instead of trying to chastise my copilot for not following the local procedures.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LR35 DEP FROM MMU, ENTERED N90 CLASS B WHILE TRYING TO OBTAIN IFR CLRNC.

Narrative: IT WAS A CRYSTAL CLR EARLY MORNING. UPON DEP FROM MMU, WE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED NY APCH USING THE SAME FREQ THAT WORKED US INBOUND ABOUT 1 HR PRIOR. MY COPLT TRIED TO GET A CLRNC AS WE CLBED THROUGH ABOUT 1000 FT. THE CTLR SEEMED TO HAVE DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE REQUEST FOR 'INSTS TO FXE,' AS MY COPLT HAS A STRONG ACCENT. THE CTLR'S INITIAL RESPONSE WAS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU DIDN'T USE THE 800 NUMBER.' I JUMPED IN AND SAID 'WE CANCELED ON THIS FREQ PRIOR TO LNDG' -- THINKING THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO OUR ARR AND HADN'T PROPERLY CANCELLED. HE REPLIED BY STATING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE USED THE 800 NUMBER TO GET OUR CLRNC ON THE GND PRIOR TO DEPARTING. I TOLD HIM I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT REQUIREMENT. THIS EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE WHILE WE WERE IN A CLBING L TURN (AFTER DEPARTING RWY 5) HEADING TO THE FIRST FIX ON OUR PROPOSED FLT PLAN. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME WE PASSED THROUGH 7000 FT, THE CTLR HESITATED FOR A MOMENT AS HE WAS ABOUT TO READ OUR CLRNC TO 'CLB TO 17000 FT CLRED DIRECT TO THE WHITE INTXN' AND SAID, WE 'HAD ENTERED CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT A CLRNC.' THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE, BUT, HAD HE NOT BEEN SO ANNOYED AT THE FACT THAT WE HADN'T FOLLOWED THE CUSTOMARY PROC OF GETTING THE CLRNC ON THE GND, WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE CLRNC PRIOR TO ENTERING CLASS B AIRSPACE. I BELIEVE THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS SIT ARE AS FOLLOWS: LANGUAGE BARRIER BTWN PLT AND CTLR, UNCLR 'PROCS' FOR OBTAINING CLRNC ON THE GND PRIOR TO DEP AFTER TWR HRS. THIS SIT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD THE CTLR BEEN QUICKER IN ISSUING THE CLRNC HE OBVIOUSLY HAD IN FRONT OF HIM THE ENTIRE TIME -- INSTEAD OF TRYING TO CHASTISE MY COPLT FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE LCL PROCS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.