CONFUSION DEVELOPS ON WHETHER OR NOT A CLRNC HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR A TWR ENRTE CLRNC AT MCI; MO.

Narrative

ON JAN/MON/00; AT APPROX XA00 PM; I WAS IN A BE55 (AT NEW CENTURY AIR CTR; IXD). WX WAS 1200 FT AGL OVCST; 4 MI VISIBILITY. MY INTENT WAS TO FLY FROM IXD TO MCI. WITH WX CONDITIONS SUCH AS THEY WERE; I KNEW I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FLY FROM IXD TO MCI AND MAINTAIN VFR. I RADIOED THE GND CTLR AT IXD; REQUESTED CLRNC TO TAXI AND ASKED FOR A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC TO MCI; WHICH IS IN A CLASS B AIRSPACE. THE GND CTLR CLRED ME TO TAXI AND SAID MY CLRNC WAS ON REQUEST. AFTER PERFORMING A RUN-UP; I RADIOED THE GND CTLR AGAIN AND REQUESTED THE CLRNC; AT WHICH TIME THE GND CTLR PROVIDED A 'SQUAWK' CODE. I THEN CONTACTED THE IXD TWR AND INFORMED THEM I WAS READY FOR DEP. THE TWR OPERATOR CLRED ME FOR TKOF. I HAD LIFTED OFF FROM IXD; AND WAS STILL IN VFR CONDITIONS; WHEN THE IXD TWR DIRECTED ME TO CONTACT MCI APCH CTL. I CONTACTED MCI APCH; AND WAS GIVEN A VECTOR TO FLY AND AN ALT TO MAINTAIN. MCI APCH CTL INFORMED ME OF THE WX CONDITIONS AT MCI AND INFORMED ME TO EXPECT THE ILS RWY 1L APCH AT MCI. MCI APCH CTL VECTORED ME TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND CLRED ME FOR THE ILS RWY 1L APCH. AFTER LNDG AT MCI AND TAXIING TO THE GA RAMP; I WAS CONTACTED BY AN MCI TWR CTLR. THE MCI TWR CTLR INFORMED ME THAT I HAD NOT BEEN ON AN IFR CLRNC. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD REQUESTED A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC FROM IXD CTLR; AND STATED THAT MY ASSUMPTION WAS THAT 'TWR-TO-TWR' IMPLIED AN IFR CLRNC. WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION IN THE CLRNC; AND THE CTLR STATED THAT THE OCCURRENCE WOULD BE REVIEWED. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; I RETURNED TO IXD; AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT MCI APCH BY PHONE. I SPOKE WITH THE OPS SUPVR FOR THE MCI APCH FACILITY. I WAS QUERIED CONCERNING THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED INCIDENT; AND INFORMED THAT A VIOLATION WOULD BE FILED. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE MEANING OF A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC. HE STATED TO ME THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC IMPLIED IFR. WE BOTH AGREED THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN THE REQUEST AND THE PROVISION OF THE CLRNC. I THEN PHONED THE TWR AT IXD AND SPOKE WITH THE SUPVR. DURING THIS DISCUSSION; HE INDICATED I HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED AN IFR CLRNC. WHEN I ASKED HIM WHAT A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC WAS; HE STATED TO ME THAT WHEN A PLT REQUESTS A 'TWR-TO-TWR' CLRNC; HIS ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE PLT WANTS AN IFR CLRNC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THAT THE TWR ENRTE (TWR TO TWR) CLRNC WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE LCL FSDO. THE CONFUSION OCCURRED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENTAL CTLR AT IXD; WHO HAD NOT HEARD OF THIS TYPE CLRNC; TREATED IT AS A FLT FOLLOWING ONLY. THIS SURPRISED THE ARR CTLRS SINCE NO FLT PLAN WAS ON FILE AND WX CONDITIONS MADE IFR FLT THE MOST APPROPRIATE.