Narrative:

The california cap wing held an air sar (search and rescue) training exercise at merced. Part of the exercise was to fly route searches over specific routes identified to us by the officials running the event. Because of the close proximity to castle AFB the castle approach and tower controllers had been notified and provided a detail of the routes we were to fly. One of the routes ran less than a mi south of the approach to the north runway. During the exercise I was accused by castle AFB controllers of an altitude violation while on an approved transition of castle's arsa and air traffic area. While on the ground at merced airport I had received a squawk from castle approach and was advised to report airborne. When airborne I advised castle 'airborne at 1000'. They advised radar contact, I then requested to remain at 1000' for the transition on the east course while in the arsa and air traffic area. At no time during did RAPCON of tower controllers advise that I was in a sensitive area. At one point, just north of the castle runway the tower controller gave us vectors for traffic avoidance. Upon leaving the arsa I requested a frequency change which was approved. Apparently, after being turned over to the tower during the transition some proximity warning devices around a munitions storage area just east of the runway went off. This caused quite a bit of commotion and caused them to believe I had committed an altitude violation which should be reported to the FAA. I was later told that the tower did not have altitude radar, had not been advised of my altitude clearance, and that the controller was a trainee. However, before they had heard back from the cap officers investigating the incident they had threatened to report the incident to the FAA as a violation. Even though, after investigating the incident (I had asked them to review the tower and approach tapes) they advised no violation would be filed, I am file anyway, just in case. Neither the cap officers who are castle AFB pilots (some are instructor pilots and very familiar with the munitions area) not the castle AFB approach and tower controllers who had been advised of the activity and the route the aircraft would be using thought about this area and the alarms. This sensitive munitions area is not shown on either the sectional chart or on the tpc chart we were given at the briefing. Since we planned to cross between 500' and 1000', at our briefing we specifically asked if there was a minimum altitude restriction for crossing the castle air traffic area. To this I was told 'what ever they approve'. Obviously, briefings in the future need to include information on this sensitive area. In addition, approach needs to communicate more completely with the tower.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA, ON CAP TRAINING EXERCISE, IS ACCUSED OF DEVIATION FROM CLEARED ALT BUT ACCUSATION WITHDRAWN AFTER INVESTIGATION.

Narrative: THE CALIFORNIA CAP WING HELD AN AIR SAR (SEARCH AND RESCUE) TRAINING EXERCISE AT MERCED. PART OF THE EXERCISE WAS TO FLY ROUTE SEARCHES OVER SPECIFIC ROUTES IDENTIFIED TO US BY THE OFFICIALS RUNNING THE EVENT. BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROX TO CASTLE AFB THE CASTLE APCH AND TWR CTLRS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AND PROVIDED A DETAIL OF THE ROUTES WE WERE TO FLY. ONE OF THE ROUTES RAN LESS THAN A MI S OF THE APCH TO THE N RWY. DURING THE EXERCISE I WAS ACCUSED BY CASTLE AFB CTLRS OF AN ALT VIOLATION WHILE ON AN APPROVED TRANSITION OF CASTLE'S ARSA AND ATA. WHILE ON THE GND AT MERCED ARPT I HAD RECEIVED A SQUAWK FROM CASTLE APCH AND WAS ADVISED TO REPORT AIRBORNE. WHEN AIRBORNE I ADVISED CASTLE 'AIRBORNE AT 1000'. THEY ADVISED RADAR CONTACT, I THEN REQUESTED TO REMAIN AT 1000' FOR THE TRANSITION ON THE E COURSE WHILE IN THE ARSA AND ATA. AT NO TIME DURING DID RAPCON OF TWR CTLRS ADVISE THAT I WAS IN A SENSITIVE AREA. AT ONE POINT, JUST N OF THE CASTLE RWY THE TWR CTLR GAVE US VECTORS FOR TFC AVOIDANCE. UPON LEAVING THE ARSA I REQUESTED A FREQ CHANGE WHICH WAS APPROVED. APPARENTLY, AFTER BEING TURNED OVER TO THE TWR DURING THE TRANSITION SOME PROX WARNING DEVICES AROUND A MUNITIONS STORAGE AREA JUST E OF THE RWY WENT OFF. THIS CAUSED QUITE A BIT OF COMMOTION AND CAUSED THEM TO BELIEVE I HAD COMMITTED AN ALT VIOLATION WHICH SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE FAA. I WAS LATER TOLD THAT THE TWR DID NOT HAVE ALT RADAR, HAD NOT BEEN ADVISED OF MY ALT CLRNC, AND THAT THE CTLR WAS A TRAINEE. HOWEVER, BEFORE THEY HAD HEARD BACK FROM THE CAP OFFICERS INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT THEY HAD THREATENED TO REPORT THE INCIDENT TO THE FAA AS A VIOLATION. EVEN THOUGH, AFTER INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT (I HAD ASKED THEM TO REVIEW THE TWR AND APCH TAPES) THEY ADVISED NO VIOLATION WOULD BE FILED, I AM FILE ANYWAY, JUST IN CASE. NEITHER THE CAP OFFICERS WHO ARE CASTLE AFB PLTS (SOME ARE INSTRUCTOR PLTS AND VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE MUNITIONS AREA) NOT THE CASTLE AFB APCH AND TWR CTLRS WHO HAD BEEN ADVISED OF THE ACTIVITY AND THE ROUTE THE ACFT WOULD BE USING THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AREA AND THE ALARMS. THIS SENSITIVE MUNITIONS AREA IS NOT SHOWN ON EITHER THE SECTIONAL CHART OR ON THE TPC CHART WE WERE GIVEN AT THE BRIEFING. SINCE WE PLANNED TO CROSS BETWEEN 500' AND 1000', AT OUR BRIEFING WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF THERE WAS A MINIMUM ALT RESTRICTION FOR XING THE CASTLE ATA. TO THIS I WAS TOLD 'WHAT EVER THEY APPROVE'. OBVIOUSLY, BRIEFINGS IN THE FUTURE NEED TO INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THIS SENSITIVE AREA. IN ADDITION, APCH NEEDS TO COMMUNICATE MORE COMPLETELY WITH THE TWR.

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.