Narrative:

I was piloting from apple valley, ca, to montgomery field in san diego in 4/89. I had been receiving flight following first from ont approach control and then from san approach control. Shortly after contacting san approach I was cleared into the TCA to maintain VFR at or above 8500'. At the time I was cruising at 9500'. Since I was at the top of descent point to produce a 3 degree descent profile into montgomery field, I began my descent to 8500' in anticipation of lower altitudes being assigned further down the road. Soon after leveling at 8500', I was instructed to descend and maintain 4500' VFR. This clearance I acknowledged and complied with. Subsequently I was cleared to descend and maintain 3500' VFR. This clearance I also complied with. Upon reaching a point 5 mi north of miramar NAS, san approach informed me that radar service was terminated, that I should squawk 1200, remain clear of the miramar air traffic area and contact montgomery tower. I responded to these instructions by inquiring as to whether or not I would require further communications with san diego approach while operating in the TCA. The controller responded by informing me that I would be clear of the TCA in 5 mi at 3500'. Our communications were thus terminated and I contacted montgomery tower. They instructed me to descend so as to cross montgomery field at 2500' for a left downwind. I began this descent after crossing miramar and after descending through 3000' above montgomery (3432' asl) considered myself in montgomery's air traffic area and under their control. Other than being required to commence my approach from an abnormally high downwind altitude, the approach and landing was normal. After turning off the runway, ground control told me that miramar was claiming that I had violated their TCA airspace and issued me a phone # on which to call to them. I called the # and spoke with chief who took my name, address and phone # and said he would pass the information along to the FAA. When I requested an opportunity to discuss the situation with the controller that was involved, he connected me to controller who told me that he was familiar with the incident, but that I shouldproperly talk to the san approach watch supervisor instead of miramar and gave me another phone # to call. After numerous attempts, I finally got through to the supervisor on duty. I explained the situation to him and he said he would call miramar to see what their problem was and call me back. This he did. He told me that I had done everything I was supposed to do just exactly right. He said san approach had watched me fly over miramar at the assigned altitude of 3500' and that miramar felt that I had started my descent from 3500' too soon. Since I was under the control of montgomery tower at the time, I don't see how this could be, in spite of the fact that the air traffic area's overlap. It seems to me that the weak link in this scenario is san approach's procedure of terminating radar service to an aircraft that is at an assigned altitude in the TCA instead of effecting a positive radar handoff to mry tower. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: pilot states that area around san is very segmented, overlapping, confusing and highly traveled. Felt that VFR traffic into area is not handled as well as IFR traffic. Feels that radar handoffs would better deal with situation where overlapping or overlaying areas of responsibility for traffic exists. He also felt that he did not violate the traffic area and says that the TRACON approach controller supported his technique in the overfly of miramar NAS air traffic area. Miramar still contended that he nicked the edge of it. As an experienced GA, commuter, corp and air carrier pilot, he felt that with the amount of traffic in the area, and sighted, he was better off on radar advisories into the TCA and over the military facility traffic area then using the VFR flyways as depicted on the charts. Analyst counseled reporter to perhaps consider filing IFR flight plans so as to facilitate handoffs and to enhance resource utilization of all services that ATC could provide. Reporter agreement on that but pilot also expressed concern over loss of flexibility on VFR departures and on VFR approachs. Trade off. More delay but less chance of violation and less exposure to a hostile environment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT PENETRATION OF MIL ATA.

Narrative: I WAS PILOTING FROM APPLE VALLEY, CA, TO MONTGOMERY FIELD IN SAN DIEGO IN 4/89. I HAD BEEN RECEIVING FLT FOLLOWING FIRST FROM ONT APCH CTL AND THEN FROM SAN APCH CTL. SHORTLY AFTER CONTACTING SAN APCH I WAS CLRED INTO THE TCA TO MAINTAIN VFR AT OR ABOVE 8500'. AT THE TIME I WAS CRUISING AT 9500'. SINCE I WAS AT THE TOP OF DSCNT POINT TO PRODUCE A 3 DEG DSCNT PROFILE INTO MONTGOMERY FIELD, I BEGAN MY DSCNT TO 8500' IN ANTICIPATION OF LOWER ALTS BEING ASSIGNED FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. SOON AFTER LEVELING AT 8500', I WAS INSTRUCTED TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 4500' VFR. THIS CLRNC I ACKNOWLEDGED AND COMPLIED WITH. SUBSEQUENTLY I WAS CLRED TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 3500' VFR. THIS CLRNC I ALSO COMPLIED WITH. UPON REACHING A POINT 5 MI N OF MIRAMAR NAS, SAN APCH INFORMED ME THAT RADAR SVC WAS TERMINATED, THAT I SHOULD SQUAWK 1200, REMAIN CLR OF THE MIRAMAR ATA AND CONTACT MONTGOMERY TWR. I RESPONDED TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS BY INQUIRING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I WOULD REQUIRE FURTHER COMS WITH SAN DIEGO APCH WHILE OPERATING IN THE TCA. THE CTLR RESPONDED BY INFORMING ME THAT I WOULD BE CLR OF THE TCA IN 5 MI AT 3500'. OUR COMS WERE THUS TERMINATED AND I CONTACTED MONTGOMERY TWR. THEY INSTRUCTED ME TO DSND SO AS TO CROSS MONTGOMERY FIELD AT 2500' FOR A LEFT DOWNWIND. I BEGAN THIS DSCNT AFTER XING MIRAMAR AND AFTER DSNDING THROUGH 3000' ABOVE MONTGOMERY (3432' ASL) CONSIDERED MYSELF IN MONTGOMERY'S ATA AND UNDER THEIR CTL. OTHER THAN BEING REQUIRED TO COMMENCE MY APCH FROM AN ABNORMALLY HIGH DOWNWIND ALT, THE APCH AND LNDG WAS NORMAL. AFTER TURNING OFF THE RWY, GND CTL TOLD ME THAT MIRAMAR WAS CLAIMING THAT I HAD VIOLATED THEIR TCA AIRSPACE AND ISSUED ME A PHONE # ON WHICH TO CALL TO THEM. I CALLED THE # AND SPOKE WITH CHIEF WHO TOOK MY NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE # AND SAID HE WOULD PASS THE INFO ALONG TO THE FAA. WHEN I REQUESTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION WITH THE CTLR THAT WAS INVOLVED, HE CONNECTED ME TO CTLR WHO TOLD ME THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE INCIDENT, BUT THAT I SHOULDPROPERLY TALK TO THE SAN APCH WATCH SUPVR INSTEAD OF MIRAMAR AND GAVE ME ANOTHER PHONE # TO CALL. AFTER NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS, I FINALLY GOT THROUGH TO THE SUPVR ON DUTY. I EXPLAINED THE SITUATION TO HIM AND HE SAID HE WOULD CALL MIRAMAR TO SEE WHAT THEIR PROB WAS AND CALL ME BACK. THIS HE DID. HE TOLD ME THAT I HAD DONE EVERYTHING I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO JUST EXACTLY RIGHT. HE SAID SAN APCH HAD WATCHED ME FLY OVER MIRAMAR AT THE ASSIGNED ALT OF 3500' AND THAT MIRAMAR FELT THAT I HAD STARTED MY DSCNT FROM 3500' TOO SOON. SINCE I WAS UNDER THE CTL OF MONTGOMERY TWR AT THE TIME, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS COULD BE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ATA'S OVERLAP. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE WEAK LINK IN THIS SCENARIO IS SAN APCH'S PROC OF TERMINATING RADAR SVC TO AN ACFT THAT IS AT AN ASSIGNED ALT IN THE TCA INSTEAD OF EFFECTING A POSITIVE RADAR HDOF TO MRY TWR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: PLT STATES THAT AREA AROUND SAN IS VERY SEGMENTED, OVERLAPPING, CONFUSING AND HIGHLY TRAVELED. FELT THAT VFR TFC INTO AREA IS NOT HANDLED AS WELL AS IFR TFC. FEELS THAT RADAR HDOFS WOULD BETTER DEAL WITH SITUATION WHERE OVERLAPPING OR OVERLAYING AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TFC EXISTS. HE ALSO FELT THAT HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE TFC AREA AND SAYS THAT THE TRACON APCH CTLR SUPPORTED HIS TECHNIQUE IN THE OVERFLY OF MIRAMAR NAS ATA. MIRAMAR STILL CONTENDED THAT HE NICKED THE EDGE OF IT. AS AN EXPERIENCED GA, COMMUTER, CORP AND ACR PLT, HE FELT THAT WITH THE AMOUNT OF TFC IN THE AREA, AND SIGHTED, HE WAS BETTER OFF ON RADAR ADVISORIES INTO THE TCA AND OVER THE MIL FAC TFC AREA THEN USING THE VFR FLYWAYS AS DEPICTED ON THE CHARTS. ANALYST COUNSELED RPTR TO PERHAPS CONSIDER FILING IFR FLT PLANS SO AS TO FACILITATE HDOFS AND TO ENHANCE RESOURCE UTILIZATION OF ALL SVCS THAT ATC COULD PROVIDE. RPTR AGREEMENT ON THAT BUT PLT ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER LOSS OF FLEXIBILITY ON VFR DEPS AND ON VFR APCHS. TRADE OFF. MORE DELAY BUT LESS CHANCE OF VIOLATION AND LESS EXPOSURE TO A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT.

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.