Narrative:

IFR en route clearance was to be obtained airborne from palm beach departure because lna is uncontrolled and clearance unobtainable on the ground. WX was clear and takeoff uneventful. Upon switching to departure frequency for en route clearance, however, numerous aircraft were being worked by radar and several calls to palm beach departure went unanswered. Radio contact still had not been made upon departure wbound from the west palm beach arsa. Because the WX was not VFR all the way to fort meyers, I elected to proceed VFR at 6500' direct to fort meyers VOR. Navigation was direct. En route low altitude chart L19 was used for navigation information. Descent was begun 15 mi to the east of page field with both page and southwest florida regional in sight at all times. Descent was planned to cross regional above 3500'. Radio contact was made with page tower upon commencing descent. Upon reaching 3600', west of regional and about 3 mi from page, page tower advised that had penetrated the fort meyers arsa and that the arsa controllers were upset that contact had not been made with them. I looked for a notation on L19 about the radar environment and found none. I reached for a WAC chart in the navigation bag and still found no mention of an arsa around fort meyers. The fort meyers arsa is relatively new and only appeared on WAC's and sectionals during the past year. But being new is not really the problem nor the issue, it has only brought it to the fore. For pilots like myself who normally file under IFR rules and use IFR charts, approach plates and navaids, identing an arsa or a TRSA is usually not of paramount importance since one normally flies under an ARTCC. When one operates under VFR but uses the more sophisticated charts and navaids available to instrument rated pilots, the problem does appear. Sectionals and wacs are cluttered, hard to read and practically useless if one is proceeding by electronic navigation from point to point. The low altitude en route charts are far better and more complete for most uses. They are missing vital information for pilots proceeding under VFR. The alternative, balancing 2 sets of charts and xchking information between them is clearly unacceptable, particularly in single plted aircraft. It would seem that at least some chart, approach plate or airport directory, normally used by instrument pilots, would include at least a clue about vital VFR information like arsa's and TRSA's. It is too easy to inadvertently violate controled airspace otherwise. In this case, the L19 chart makes it appears, from the control zone markings around page and regional, that page is the dominant control zone. The new arsa on WAC's and sectionals is centered on regional airport and extends beyond both airport control zones. Thus the arsa is primary for radar control into the area. There is no mention on low altitude en route charts about arsa's or TRSA's, nor is there mention in the airport/facility directory that page is located under an arsa. There is no mention of arsa's in the us government instrument approach procedures. These are primary charts and plates that an instrument rated pilot--even under VFR conditions--will use because they are more complete about electronic navigation data. It appears we have a flight safety item. A pilot in a well equipped aircraft must never fail to file IFR or he must juggle additional charts in the cockpit if we want the advantages of his navigation equipment but elects to proceed VFR. With the introduction of the arsa concept it would seem that the older control zones around each airport become obsolete and west/O meaning if they are embedded within an arsa. But they are still depicted on the low altitude en route charts whereas the arsa is not. This is at best confusing and in this case misleading as to the true extent of the mandatory radar environment. Finally in this matter, it would have been simple for page tower upon initial contact to have advised: 'contact radar on XXXX for clearance.' the rapid expansion of the radar control environment coupled with the establishment of new mandatory reporting points makes it difficult for a pilot flying under VFR to know who is controling the area he is flying in and upon which frequency he should check in if unfamiliar with the area. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states he made a mistake, but issue is really about IFR charts not depicting arsa's and TCA's. Feels owners of sophisticated aircraft should be able to fly using IFR charts which have full information on them. Feel control zones do not need to be on IFR charts so should eliminate and show TCA and arsa instead. Reporter feels he should have been given assistance by ATC rather than being notified after the fact he had penetrated the airspace.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PENETRATION ARSA.

Narrative: IFR ENRTE CLRNC WAS TO BE OBTAINED AIRBORNE FROM PALM BEACH DEP BECAUSE LNA IS UNCONTROLLED AND CLRNC UNOBTAINABLE ON THE GND. WX WAS CLEAR AND TKOF UNEVENTFUL. UPON SWITCHING TO DEP FREQ FOR ENRTE CLRNC, HOWEVER, NUMEROUS ACFT WERE BEING WORKED BY RADAR AND SEVERAL CALLS TO PALM BEACH DEP WENT UNANSWERED. RADIO CONTACT STILL HAD NOT BEEN MADE UPON DEP WBOUND FROM THE WEST PALM BEACH ARSA. BECAUSE THE WX WAS NOT VFR ALL THE WAY TO FORT MEYERS, I ELECTED TO PROCEED VFR AT 6500' DIRECT TO FORT MEYERS VOR. NAV WAS DIRECT. ENRTE LOW ALT CHART L19 WAS USED FOR NAV INFO. DSCNT WAS BEGUN 15 MI TO THE E OF PAGE FIELD WITH BOTH PAGE AND SW FLORIDA REGIONAL IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES. DSCNT WAS PLANNED TO CROSS REGIONAL ABOVE 3500'. RADIO CONTACT WAS MADE WITH PAGE TWR UPON COMMENCING DSCNT. UPON REACHING 3600', W OF REGIONAL AND ABOUT 3 MI FROM PAGE, PAGE TWR ADVISED THAT HAD PENETRATED THE FORT MEYERS ARSA AND THAT THE ARSA CTLRS WERE UPSET THAT CONTACT HAD NOT BEEN MADE WITH THEM. I LOOKED FOR A NOTATION ON L19 ABOUT THE RADAR ENVIRONMENT AND FOUND NONE. I REACHED FOR A WAC CHART IN THE NAV BAG AND STILL FOUND NO MENTION OF AN ARSA AROUND FORT MEYERS. THE FORT MEYERS ARSA IS RELATIVELY NEW AND ONLY APPEARED ON WAC'S AND SECTIONALS DURING THE PAST YEAR. BUT BEING NEW IS NOT REALLY THE PROB NOR THE ISSUE, IT HAS ONLY BROUGHT IT TO THE FORE. FOR PLTS LIKE MYSELF WHO NORMALLY FILE UNDER IFR RULES AND USE IFR CHARTS, APCH PLATES AND NAVAIDS, IDENTING AN ARSA OR A TRSA IS USUALLY NOT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE SINCE ONE NORMALLY FLIES UNDER AN ARTCC. WHEN ONE OPERATES UNDER VFR BUT USES THE MORE SOPHISTICATED CHARTS AND NAVAIDS AVAILABLE TO INSTRUMENT RATED PLTS, THE PROB DOES APPEAR. SECTIONALS AND WACS ARE CLUTTERED, HARD TO READ AND PRACTICALLY USELESS IF ONE IS PROCEEDING BY ELECTRONIC NAV FROM POINT TO POINT. THE LOW ALT ENRTE CHARTS ARE FAR BETTER AND MORE COMPLETE FOR MOST USES. THEY ARE MISSING VITAL INFO FOR PLTS PROCEEDING UNDER VFR. THE ALTERNATIVE, BALANCING 2 SETS OF CHARTS AND XCHKING INFO BTWN THEM IS CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE, PARTICULARLY IN SINGLE PLTED ACFT. IT WOULD SEEM THAT AT LEAST SOME CHART, APCH PLATE OR ARPT DIRECTORY, NORMALLY USED BY INSTRUMENT PLTS, WOULD INCLUDE AT LEAST A CLUE ABOUT VITAL VFR INFO LIKE ARSA'S AND TRSA'S. IT IS TOO EASY TO INADVERTENTLY VIOLATE CTLED AIRSPACE OTHERWISE. IN THIS CASE, THE L19 CHART MAKES IT APPEARS, FROM THE CTL ZONE MARKINGS AROUND PAGE AND REGIONAL, THAT PAGE IS THE DOMINANT CTL ZONE. THE NEW ARSA ON WAC'S AND SECTIONALS IS CENTERED ON REGIONAL ARPT AND EXTENDS BEYOND BOTH ARPT CTL ZONES. THUS THE ARSA IS PRIMARY FOR RADAR CTL INTO THE AREA. THERE IS NO MENTION ON LOW ALT ENRTE CHARTS ABOUT ARSA'S OR TRSA'S, NOR IS THERE MENTION IN THE ARPT/FAC DIRECTORY THAT PAGE IS LOCATED UNDER AN ARSA. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ARSA'S IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENT APCH PROCS. THESE ARE PRIMARY CHARTS AND PLATES THAT AN INSTRUMENT RATED PLT--EVEN UNDER VFR CONDITIONS--WILL USE BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE COMPLETE ABOUT ELECTRONIC NAV DATA. IT APPEARS WE HAVE A FLT SAFETY ITEM. A PLT IN A WELL EQUIPPED ACFT MUST NEVER FAIL TO FILE IFR OR HE MUST JUGGLE ADDITIONAL CHARTS IN THE COCKPIT IF WE WANT THE ADVANTAGES OF HIS NAV EQUIP BUT ELECTS TO PROCEED VFR. WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ARSA CONCEPT IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE OLDER CTL ZONES AROUND EACH ARPT BECOME OBSOLETE AND W/O MEANING IF THEY ARE EMBEDDED WITHIN AN ARSA. BUT THEY ARE STILL DEPICTED ON THE LOW ALT ENRTE CHARTS WHEREAS THE ARSA IS NOT. THIS IS AT BEST CONFUSING AND IN THIS CASE MISLEADING AS TO THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE MANDATORY RADAR ENVIRONMENT. FINALLY IN THIS MATTER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE FOR PAGE TWR UPON INITIAL CONTACT TO HAVE ADVISED: 'CONTACT RADAR ON XXXX FOR CLRNC.' THE RAPID EXPANSION OF THE RADAR CTL ENVIRONMENT COUPLED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MANDATORY RPTING POINTS MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR A PLT FLYING UNDER VFR TO KNOW WHO IS CTLING THE AREA HE IS FLYING IN AND UPON WHICH FREQ HE SHOULD CHK IN IF UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES HE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT ISSUE IS REALLY ABOUT IFR CHARTS NOT DEPICTING ARSA'S AND TCA'S. FEELS OWNERS OF SOPHISTICATED ACFT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FLY USING IFR CHARTS WHICH HAVE FULL INFO ON THEM. FEEL CTL ZONES DO NOT NEED TO BE ON IFR CHARTS SO SHOULD ELIMINATE AND SHOW TCA AND ARSA INSTEAD. RPTR FEELS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN ASSISTANCE BY ATC RATHER THAN BEING NOTIFIED AFTER THE FACT HE HAD PENETRATED THE AIRSPACE.

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.