Narrative:

Our flight departed mineral wells, tx, at xxz in 2/89. The previous hour WX was reported as 800' overcast with 12 mi visibility. Commercial charts list fort worth radio on 122.2 and ZFW on 127.0 as ATC contacts. Prior to departure, VHF contact with both facs was unsuccessful and an ATC clearance was therefore not obtained via radio. At that time I departed VFR and climbed to 500' with the intention of either obtaining the clearance via radio or returning to mwl and landing. Radio contact was unsuccessful with the FSS, but center was contacted at 500' AGL and our IFR clearance was obtained. It was at that time I realized that I had departed from an IFR control zone and was flying in a control zone below a ceiling that was less than 1000'. When the center controller handed us off, he thanked us 'for your patience.' I was hoping that he was unaware of our rules violation. I was aware of the existing WX and aware of the operating rules. My failure was that I was not aware that I was operating in a control zone until after I had violated the rules. Clearly, I must pay more attention to the establishment of control zones when operating to and from uncontrolled airports. This incident has prompted the following additional observations: 1) our VFR departure in the stated WX conditions was probably no more hazardous than a similar departure from an uncontrolled airport that did not have a control zone. It was, however, a clear violation of operating rules. 2) until recently, control zones established west/O operating control towers on on-site FSS's was a rarity. Lbl and odd early am hours at btr are the only ones I can recall. Now that FSS's are being consolidated, the remote control zones are much more common. 3) WX observation and ATC air to ground communication is required for the establishment of a control zone. For some remote control zones, ATC communication is marginal at best. Some airports with both WX observations and excellent ATC communication do not have an established control zone. Ptn is an example. One's operating environment is not a reliable indicator of the presence of a zone. 4) control zones are depicted on both IFR and VFR charts although the depiction is not particularly highlighted. 5) in previous yrs, with very few exceptions, (see lbl and btr, above), pilot communications were automatically routed to the controling or advising ATC agency either by the far's in the case of control towers or the iam for FSS's. These agencies serve to inform the pilot of IFR conditions reported in control zones and process requests (IFR clearance or special VFR, etc). The normal pilot contact with a remote control zone (non-FSS advised or tower controled) is through a unicom or non ATC CTAF where the existence of an IFR control zone will probably not be announced. 6) actual WX conditions at a field in a zone may be VMC although the official reported WX is IMC/IFR (or vice versa) due to changing conditions between observations. 7) all of the above generates a situation where pilots may be conducting operations that appear safe and proper, but nonetheless are clear violations of operating rules. Further, while the necessary information is technically available to pilots. That information must be obtained in an indirect and non-intuitive basis. This does not fit the historical pattern of successful aviation operations. 8) I believe the current situation is far more hazardous to pilot certificates than it is to life and limb. Proposal: I propose that all control zones use an FSS frequency as the CTAF and that FSS specialists perform the same active advisory role that they do at the few remaining on-site FSS using 123.6. If the ATC system cannot provide either the facs or manpwr for this service, I propose that those control zones be eliminated.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DEP FROM CTL ZONE IN LESS THAN VFR CONDITIONS WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: OUR FLT DEPARTED MINERAL WELLS, TX, AT XXZ IN 2/89. THE PREVIOUS HR WX WAS RPTED AS 800' OVCST WITH 12 MI VISIBILITY. COMMERCIAL CHARTS LIST FORT WORTH RADIO ON 122.2 AND ZFW ON 127.0 AS ATC CONTACTS. PRIOR TO DEP, VHF CONTACT WITH BOTH FACS WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND AN ATC CLRNC WAS THEREFORE NOT OBTAINED VIA RADIO. AT THAT TIME I DEPARTED VFR AND CLBED TO 500' WITH THE INTENTION OF EITHER OBTAINING THE CLRNC VIA RADIO OR RETURNING TO MWL AND LNDG. RADIO CONTACT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL WITH THE FSS, BUT CENTER WAS CONTACTED AT 500' AGL AND OUR IFR CLRNC WAS OBTAINED. IT WAS AT THAT TIME I REALIZED THAT I HAD DEPARTED FROM AN IFR CTL ZONE AND WAS FLYING IN A CTL ZONE BELOW A CEILING THAT WAS LESS THAN 1000'. WHEN THE CENTER CTLR HANDED US OFF, HE THANKED US 'FOR YOUR PATIENCE.' I WAS HOPING THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF OUR RULES VIOLATION. I WAS AWARE OF THE EXISTING WX AND AWARE OF THE OPERATING RULES. MY FAILURE WAS THAT I WAS NOT AWARE THAT I WAS OPERATING IN A CTL ZONE UNTIL AFTER I HAD VIOLATED THE RULES. CLEARLY, I MUST PAY MORE ATTN TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CTL ZONES WHEN OPERATING TO AND FROM UNCTLED ARPTS. THIS INCIDENT HAS PROMPTED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS: 1) OUR VFR DEP IN THE STATED WX CONDITIONS WAS PROBABLY NO MORE HAZARDOUS THAN A SIMILAR DEP FROM AN UNCTLED ARPT THAT DID NOT HAVE A CTL ZONE. IT WAS, HOWEVER, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF OPERATING RULES. 2) UNTIL RECENTLY, CTL ZONES ESTABLISHED W/O OPERATING CTL TWRS ON ON-SITE FSS'S WAS A RARITY. LBL AND ODD EARLY AM HRS AT BTR ARE THE ONLY ONES I CAN RECALL. NOW THAT FSS'S ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED, THE REMOTE CTL ZONES ARE MUCH MORE COMMON. 3) WX OBSERVATION AND ATC AIR TO GND COM IS REQUIRED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CTL ZONE. FOR SOME REMOTE CTL ZONES, ATC COM IS MARGINAL AT BEST. SOME ARPTS WITH BOTH WX OBSERVATIONS AND EXCELLENT ATC COM DO NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED CTL ZONE. PTN IS AN EXAMPLE. ONE'S OPERATING ENVIRONMENT IS NOT A RELIABLE INDICATOR OF THE PRESENCE OF A ZONE. 4) CTL ZONES ARE DEPICTED ON BOTH IFR AND VFR CHARTS ALTHOUGH THE DEPICTION IS NOT PARTICULARLY HIGHLIGHTED. 5) IN PREVIOUS YRS, WITH VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS, (SEE LBL AND BTR, ABOVE), PLT COMS WERE AUTOMATICALLY ROUTED TO THE CTLING OR ADVISING ATC AGENCY EITHER BY THE FAR'S IN THE CASE OF CTL TWRS OR THE IAM FOR FSS'S. THESE AGENCIES SERVE TO INFORM THE PLT OF IFR CONDITIONS RPTED IN CTL ZONES AND PROCESS REQUESTS (IFR CLRNC OR SPECIAL VFR, ETC). THE NORMAL PLT CONTACT WITH A REMOTE CTL ZONE (NON-FSS ADVISED OR TWR CTLED) IS THROUGH A UNICOM OR NON ATC CTAF WHERE THE EXISTENCE OF AN IFR CTL ZONE WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ANNOUNCED. 6) ACTUAL WX CONDITIONS AT A FIELD IN A ZONE MAY BE VMC ALTHOUGH THE OFFICIAL RPTED WX IS IMC/IFR (OR VICE VERSA) DUE TO CHANGING CONDITIONS BTWN OBSERVATIONS. 7) ALL OF THE ABOVE GENERATES A SITUATION WHERE PLTS MAY BE CONDUCTING OPS THAT APPEAR SAFE AND PROPER, BUT NONETHELESS ARE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF OPERATING RULES. FURTHER, WHILE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IS TECHNICALLY AVAILABLE TO PLTS. THAT INFORMATION MUST BE OBTAINED IN AN INDIRECT AND NON-INTUITIVE BASIS. THIS DOES NOT FIT THE HISTORICAL PATTERN OF SUCCESSFUL AVIATION OPERATIONS. 8) I BELIEVE THE CURRENT SITUATION IS FAR MORE HAZARDOUS TO PLT CERTIFICATES THAN IT IS TO LIFE AND LIMB. PROPOSAL: I PROPOSE THAT ALL CTL ZONES USE AN FSS FREQ AS THE CTAF AND THAT FSS SPECIALISTS PERFORM THE SAME ACTIVE ADVISORY ROLE THAT THEY DO AT THE FEW REMAINING ON-SITE FSS USING 123.6. IF THE ATC SYS CANNOT PROVIDE EITHER THE FACS OR MANPWR FOR THIS SVC, I PROPOSE THAT THOSE CTL ZONES BE ELIMINATED.

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.