Narrative:

We had just departed lee on runway 13, en route to fll. Shortly after departure, we began to contact orl approach to obtain a clearance through the orl TCA. After several attempts, the controller responded with a squawk code and instructions to remain clear of the TCA. We had already climbed through 3000' when I checked the orl terminal area chart. I was unable to quickly determine the exact limits of the TCA for lack of landmarks to define them. At the same time there was no way to define the limits with the use of navaids. I initiated an immediate descent to 2900' and started a south turn to remain clear of the TCA. This was sufficient to keep us below the next level of the TCA. Finally, the controller cleared us to 4500' and assigned a heading. In my estimation, we cleared the boundaries of the TCA by 2 NM with our evasive maneuver. All of which would have been unnecessary, if we had a clear ground reference to correlate to the chart, as to the limits of the TCA. Most TCA's are circular in shape and have a NAVAID (VOR) in the center, which makes determining the limits manageable utilizing radials and DME. Even west/O navaids or DME, one can establish the distances of the limits easily, since they all originate from 1 point and remain constant. The orl TCA, however, does not lend itself to this since it has an irregular shape. This makes determining the exact limits very difficult, even under the best of circumstances. Neither does it utilize prominent landmarks (i.e., lakes, roads, etc) to define the boundaries, in this case corners. As my comments indicate, we need to consider more than just accommodation of IFR traffic rtes in designing TCA's, but also to simplify and conform their shape to some recognizable landmarks to avoid inadvertent encroachment by VFR traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPR SMT UNAUTH PENETRATION OF MCO TCA.

Narrative: WE HAD JUST DEPARTED LEE ON RWY 13, ENRTE TO FLL. SHORTLY AFTER DEP, WE BEGAN TO CONTACT ORL APCH TO OBTAIN A CLRNC THROUGH THE ORL TCA. AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, THE CTLR RESPONDED WITH A SQUAWK CODE AND INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAIN CLR OF THE TCA. WE HAD ALREADY CLBED THROUGH 3000' WHEN I CHKED THE ORL TERMINAL AREA CHART. I WAS UNABLE TO QUICKLY DETERMINE THE EXACT LIMITS OF THE TCA FOR LACK OF LANDMARKS TO DEFINE THEM. AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS NO WAY TO DEFINE THE LIMITS WITH THE USE OF NAVAIDS. I INITIATED AN IMMEDIATE DSNT TO 2900' AND STARTED A S TURN TO REMAIN CLR OF THE TCA. THIS WAS SUFFICIENT TO KEEP US BELOW THE NEXT LEVEL OF THE TCA. FINALLY, THE CTLR CLRED US TO 4500' AND ASSIGNED A HDG. IN MY ESTIMATION, WE CLRED THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TCA BY 2 NM WITH OUR EVASIVE MANEUVER. ALL OF WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY, IF WE HAD A CLR GND REF TO CORRELATE TO THE CHART, AS TO THE LIMITS OF THE TCA. MOST TCA'S ARE CIRCULAR IN SHAPE AND HAVE A NAVAID (VOR) IN THE CENTER, WHICH MAKES DETERMINING THE LIMITS MANAGEABLE UTILIZING RADIALS AND DME. EVEN W/O NAVAIDS OR DME, ONE CAN ESTABLISH THE DISTANCES OF THE LIMITS EASILY, SINCE THEY ALL ORIGINATE FROM 1 POINT AND REMAIN CONSTANT. THE ORL TCA, HOWEVER, DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO THIS SINCE IT HAS AN IRREGULAR SHAPE. THIS MAKES DETERMINING THE EXACT LIMITS VERY DIFFICULT, EVEN UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES. NEITHER DOES IT UTILIZE PROMINENT LANDMARKS (I.E., LAKES, ROADS, ETC) TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES, IN THIS CASE CORNERS. AS MY COMMENTS INDICATE, WE NEED TO CONSIDER MORE THAN JUST ACCOMMODATION OF IFR TFC RTES IN DESIGNING TCA'S, BUT ALSO TO SIMPLIFY AND CONFORM THEIR SHAPE TO SOME RECOGNIZABLE LANDMARKS TO AVOID INADVERTENT ENCROACHMENT BY VFR TFC.

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.