Narrative:

Received WX briefing via duat for local flight in cmh area. Approached uyf from northeast monitoring CTAF. At 5 mi out, announced intention on CTAF to overfly airport at 250' MSL. Received no reply. On crossing the 8-26 centerline, I again announced our presence on the CTAF to alert traffic that had just announced landing intentions. At that time I received a call from an unidented ground operator notifying me that an air traffic area was in effect. I indicated my understanding and continued. I knew there was no control tower at uyf, and I concluded the ground operator had misspoken. I couldn't figure out why he would give such a notice, but I didn't pursue the matter. There were other aircraft operating in and out of the airport, but none received a similar caution. We completed our operations to the south and returned northbound. Our path was again over uyf, this time from the south. I monitored the uyf CTAF from about 15 mi out. At about 10 mi, I heard an aircraft call from the north for an airport advisory. At 5 mi I announced our intention to overfly at 2500' MSL east of the airport and received no reply. I intended to avoid an overflt in view of my earlier confusion about the airport's status. At about the same time the landing traffic announced that he had mistaken his position and was actually north of a private field about 10 mi east. He said he was now swbnd to uyf. I diverted to overfly the midpoint of the airport and climbed to 2700' MSL. I did so, thinking this would lessen the potential of a conflict with the incoming traffic. Pattern altitude at uyf is 2100' MSL. As I was approaching the 8-26 centerline, I saw a biplane doing a loop about 3 mi north on a n-s course. The biplane completed its loop and began maneuvers to the northeast and then the east. I again announced my position and altitude on the CTAF and stated that I had the aerobatic traffic in sight and was departing the area to the northwest. In response, an unidented ground operator stated that an air traffic area was in effect by NOTAM for the purpose of aerobatics and that I had just flown through a 'hot box.' I indicated my understanding and left the area. I estimate that at no time were we within 2 mi of the aerobatic traffic. The flight continued west/O further incident. At this writing I have not verified the existence of the NOTAM in question, and am assuming the ground operator was someone in a position of authority. Here are my conclusions about how this happened and how it could have been avoided: 1) I should have asked for clarification of the ground operator's first transmission. When it didn't make sense to me, I concluded that he was acting west/O reason or authority and dismissed his transmission west/O follow-up. 2) the ground operator should have idented himself. When he didn't, I should have asked him to. 3) in some of my xmissions after the ground operator's first use of the designation 'air traffic area,' I used the term myself even though I was unclear as to its applicability in this situation. I know air traffic area refers to the area surrounding an airport with an operating control tower. I know uyf has no control tower. I should have resolved this contradiction before adopting the ground operator's term. Although traffic was operating in and out of the airport throughout, the ground operator was not providing the ATC services one would expect if the terminology were accurate. Indeed, the only acknowledgements I received occurred when I was directly over the airport. 4) I should have obtained the published NOTAMS as part of my flight preparation. Although the duat NOTAMS covered day, the NOTAM identify for uyf, there was no NOTAM about this situation in my duat briefing. I think the reality of the situation is that most pilots don't review published NOTAMS because they don't have convenient access to them. This is an oft-stated problem, so enough said. 5) the ground operator should have stated clearly to all aircraft calling uyf that special circumstances existed. There were aircraft operating in and out of the airport throughout the period, yet we heard no notice to any that an air traffic area existed, that aerobatics were in process, or that a potential hazard existed. If unusual conditions exist, monitoring aircraft will be more likely to hear and understand if the conditions are repeated in a uniform manner to every aircraft that calls. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter checked into situation afterward. Information was later published in an aviation magazine stating that an 'aerobatic training area' had been established south of the e-w runway, a 1 mi box from 1000-5000'. Ground personnel broadcasting that an air traffic area was in effect misused that term and aided the confusion. Reporter feels that aerobatic training was not within the 'box,' as he was north of the field.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT RECEIVES CONFUSING COM REGARDING AN ATA AT AN UNCONTROLLED FIELD.

Narrative: RECEIVED WX BRIEFING VIA DUAT FOR LCL FLT IN CMH AREA. APCHED UYF FROM NE MONITORING CTAF. AT 5 MI OUT, ANNOUNCED INTENTION ON CTAF TO OVERFLY ARPT AT 250' MSL. RECEIVED NO REPLY. ON XING THE 8-26 CENTERLINE, I AGAIN ANNOUNCED OUR PRESENCE ON THE CTAF TO ALERT TFC THAT HAD JUST ANNOUNCED LNDG INTENTIONS. AT THAT TIME I RECEIVED A CALL FROM AN UNIDENTED GND OPERATOR NOTIFYING ME THAT AN ATA WAS IN EFFECT. I INDICATED MY UNDERSTANDING AND CONTINUED. I KNEW THERE WAS NO CTL TWR AT UYF, AND I CONCLUDED THE GND OPERATOR HAD MISSPOKEN. I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHY HE WOULD GIVE SUCH A NOTICE, BUT I DIDN'T PURSUE THE MATTER. THERE WERE OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN AND OUT OF THE ARPT, BUT NONE RECEIVED A SIMILAR CAUTION. WE COMPLETED OUR OPS TO THE S AND RETURNED NBND. OUR PATH WAS AGAIN OVER UYF, THIS TIME FROM THE S. I MONITORED THE UYF CTAF FROM ABOUT 15 MI OUT. AT ABOUT 10 MI, I HEARD AN ACFT CALL FROM THE N FOR AN ARPT ADVISORY. AT 5 MI I ANNOUNCED OUR INTENTION TO OVERFLY AT 2500' MSL E OF THE ARPT AND RECEIVED NO REPLY. I INTENDED TO AVOID AN OVERFLT IN VIEW OF MY EARLIER CONFUSION ABOUT THE ARPT'S STATUS. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE LNDG TFC ANNOUNCED THAT HE HAD MISTAKEN HIS POS AND WAS ACTUALLY N OF A PVT FIELD ABOUT 10 MI E. HE SAID HE WAS NOW SWBND TO UYF. I DIVERTED TO OVERFLY THE MIDPOINT OF THE ARPT AND CLBED TO 2700' MSL. I DID SO, THINKING THIS WOULD LESSEN THE POTENTIAL OF A CONFLICT WITH THE INCOMING TFC. PATTERN ALT AT UYF IS 2100' MSL. AS I WAS APCHING THE 8-26 CENTERLINE, I SAW A BIPLANE DOING A LOOP ABOUT 3 MI N ON A N-S COURSE. THE BIPLANE COMPLETED ITS LOOP AND BEGAN MANEUVERS TO THE NE AND THEN THE E. I AGAIN ANNOUNCED MY POS AND ALT ON THE CTAF AND STATED THAT I HAD THE AEROBATIC TFC IN SIGHT AND WAS DEPARTING THE AREA TO THE NW. IN RESPONSE, AN UNIDENTED GND OPERATOR STATED THAT AN ATA WAS IN EFFECT BY NOTAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF AEROBATICS AND THAT I HAD JUST FLOWN THROUGH A 'HOT BOX.' I INDICATED MY UNDERSTANDING AND LEFT THE AREA. I ESTIMATE THAT AT NO TIME WERE WE WITHIN 2 MI OF THE AEROBATIC TFC. THE FLT CONTINUED W/O FURTHER INCIDENT. AT THIS WRITING I HAVE NOT VERIFIED THE EXISTENCE OF THE NOTAM IN QUESTION, AND AM ASSUMING THE GND OPERATOR WAS SOMEONE IN A POS OF AUTHORITY. HERE ARE MY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT HOW THIS HAPPENED AND HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED: 1) I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE GND OPERATOR'S FIRST XMISSION. WHEN IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, I CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS ACTING W/O REASON OR AUTHORITY AND DISMISSED HIS XMISSION W/O FOLLOW-UP. 2) THE GND OPERATOR SHOULD HAVE IDENTED HIMSELF. WHEN HE DIDN'T, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM TO. 3) IN SOME OF MY XMISSIONS AFTER THE GND OPERATOR'S FIRST USE OF THE DESIGNATION 'ATA,' I USED THE TERM MYSELF EVEN THOUGH I WAS UNCLEAR AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY IN THIS SITUATION. I KNOW ATA REFERS TO THE AREA SURROUNDING AN ARPT WITH AN OPERATING CTL TWR. I KNOW UYF HAS NO CTL TWR. I SHOULD HAVE RESOLVED THIS CONTRADICTION BEFORE ADOPTING THE GND OPERATOR'S TERM. ALTHOUGH TFC WAS OPERATING IN AND OUT OF THE ARPT THROUGHOUT, THE GND OPERATOR WAS NOT PROVIDING THE ATC SVCS ONE WOULD EXPECT IF THE TERMINOLOGY WERE ACCURATE. INDEED, THE ONLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I RECEIVED OCCURRED WHEN I WAS DIRECTLY OVER THE ARPT. 4) I SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED THE PUBLISHED NOTAMS AS PART OF MY FLT PREPARATION. ALTHOUGH THE DUAT NOTAMS COVERED DAY, THE NOTAM IDENT FOR UYF, THERE WAS NO NOTAM ABOUT THIS SITUATION IN MY DUAT BRIEFING. I THINK THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT MOST PLTS DON'T REVIEW PUBLISHED NOTAMS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CONVENIENT ACCESS TO THEM. THIS IS AN OFT-STATED PROB, SO ENOUGH SAID. 5) THE GND OPERATOR SHOULD HAVE STATED CLEARLY TO ALL ACFT CALLING UYF THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED. THERE WERE ACFT OPERATING IN AND OUT OF THE ARPT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD, YET WE HEARD NO NOTICE TO ANY THAT AN ATA EXISTED, THAT AEROBATICS WERE IN PROCESS, OR THAT A POTENTIAL HAZARD EXISTED. IF UNUSUAL CONDITIONS EXIST, MONITORING ACFT WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO HEAR AND UNDERSTAND IF THE CONDITIONS ARE REPEATED IN A UNIFORM MANNER TO EVERY ACFT THAT CALLS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR CHKED INTO SITUATION AFTERWARD. INFO WAS LATER PUBLISHED IN AN AVIATION MAGAZINE STATING THAT AN 'AEROBATIC TRNING AREA' HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED S OF THE E-W RWY, A 1 MI BOX FROM 1000-5000'. GND PERSONNEL BROADCASTING THAT AN ATA WAS IN EFFECT MISUSED THAT TERM AND AIDED THE CONFUSION. RPTR FEELS THAT AEROBATIC TRNING WAS NOT WITHIN THE 'BOX,' AS HE WAS N OF THE FIELD.

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.