Narrative:

I unknowingly entered the temporarily expanded area of prohibited area P-67 due to, what is in my view, inadequate and misleading publication of the regulation. In preparation for my flight I acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence to obtain all available information pertinent to the planned flight, and comply with published regulations. Specifically, I called flight service for a briefing, was placed on hold for an extended period, and heard the boston-portland-bangor tweb. As the visibility was unlimited, sky clear, WX stable, and the WX information was confirmed by NOAA radio this was an adequate briefing for the flight. I do not recall mention of any NOTAMS. No NOTAMS were mentioned on the bedford, ma, ATIS at the time of my departure. I have flown over southern maine several times in the past, and was familiar with the route and the existence of the kennebunkport prohibited area. As I entered southern maine, I checked the current ny sectional aeronautical chart to confirm the extent of the prohibited area. As P-67 is the only prohibited area on the ny sectional, it is easy to locate in the table of special use airspace on the margin of the chart, which is on the reverse side of the chart from the representation of maine. In this table P-67 is listed first, with the following entries: altitude: to 1000. Time of use: continuous. Controling agency: no air-to-ground communication. There is no mention made of temporary expansions of P-67 in the table of special use airspace. To ensure compliance with the published regulation, I climbed to 2000 ft indicated altitude. I have since become aware that on the ny sectional, on the side with the map representing maine, there is an entry out over the ocean an inch from kennebunkport which reads '(check NOTAMS daily for expansion)'. Yet, there is no indication on the chart of any extended boundaries of prohibited area P-67. The cartographer's placement and treatment of this crucial piece of information can obscure information necessary for safe navigation, and are not consistent with the way in which sectional charts are used. The altitude of the prohibited area is defined only in the special use airspace table, and a pilot should be able to assume that the definition printed there is complete and correct. The notice given on the map side changes that definition and should be included in that table. Rather than 'no air-to- ground communications' the table could say 'contact portland for changes'. The charts are 4 1/2 ft long and it is impossible to examine the entire map for details. The notice on the map side is not closely associated with the circular representation of the prohibited area, nor even with the words 'prohibited P-67' which separate it from the indicated area. I suggest that in the interest of all concerned, the cartographer should represent the dimensions of the maximum expansion of the prohibited area on the chart, in dotted lines or otherwise. Also, the daily changes in altitude are an inconvenience for all. It would ease safety concerns and increase compliance if the altitude were fixed permanently at the maximum. 3000 ft is not an unreasonable imposition. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states north of P-67 is pwn arsa. Reporter contacted approach for clearance and was asked if he was aware of P-67. Responding 'yes' he was asked 'then why are you in the middle of it?' upon that its ceiling was 1000 ft, controller informed reporter of temporary expanded state to 3000 ft and nominal 3 mi. Reporter asked where that information was available. It was on pwm ATIS. However that is well north of P-67 and well beyond reporter's departure point. He has received a letter from FSDO and responded.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT PENETRATES EXPANDED P-67 AIRSPACE.

Narrative: I UNKNOWINGLY ENTERED THE TEMPORARILY EXPANDED AREA OF PROHIBITED AREA P-67 DUE TO, WHAT IS IN MY VIEW, INADEQUATE AND MISLEADING PUBLICATION OF THE REG. IN PREPARATION FOR MY FLT I ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO OBTAIN ALL AVAILABLE INFO PERTINENT TO THE PLANNED FLT, AND COMPLY WITH PUBLISHED REGS. SPECIFICALLY, I CALLED FLT SVC FOR A BRIEFING, WAS PLACED ON HOLD FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD, AND HEARD THE BOSTON-PORTLAND-BANGOR TWEB. AS THE VISIBILITY WAS UNLIMITED, SKY CLR, WX STABLE, AND THE WX INFO WAS CONFIRMED BY NOAA RADIO THIS WAS AN ADEQUATE BRIEFING FOR THE FLT. I DO NOT RECALL MENTION OF ANY NOTAMS. NO NOTAMS WERE MENTIONED ON THE BEDFORD, MA, ATIS AT THE TIME OF MY DEP. I HAVE FLOWN OVER SOUTHERN MAINE SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, AND WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE RTE AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE KENNEBUNKPORT PROHIBITED AREA. AS I ENTERED SOUTHERN MAINE, I CHKED THE CURRENT NY SECTIONAL AERONAUTICAL CHART TO CONFIRM THE EXTENT OF THE PROHIBITED AREA. AS P-67 IS THE ONLY PROHIBITED AREA ON THE NY SECTIONAL, IT IS EASY TO LOCATE IN THE TABLE OF SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE ON THE MARGIN OF THE CHART, WHICH IS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE CHART FROM THE REPRESENTATION OF MAINE. IN THIS TABLE P-67 IS LISTED FIRST, WITH THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES: ALT: TO 1000. TIME OF USE: CONTINUOUS. CTLING AGENCY: NO AIR-TO-GND COM. THERE IS NO MENTION MADE OF TEMPORARY EXPANSIONS OF P-67 IN THE TABLE OF SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE. TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLISHED REG, I CLBED TO 2000 FT INDICATED ALT. I HAVE SINCE BECOME AWARE THAT ON THE NY SECTIONAL, ON THE SIDE WITH THE MAP REPRESENTING MAINE, THERE IS AN ENTRY OUT OVER THE OCEAN AN INCH FROM KENNEBUNKPORT WHICH READS '(CHK NOTAMS DAILY FOR EXPANSION)'. YET, THERE IS NO INDICATION ON THE CHART OF ANY EXTENDED BOUNDARIES OF PROHIBITED AREA P-67. THE CARTOGRAPHER'S PLACEMENT AND TREATMENT OF THIS CRUCIAL PIECE OF INFO CAN OBSCURE INFO NECESSARY FOR SAFE NAV, AND ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY IN WHICH SECTIONAL CHARTS ARE USED. THE ALT OF THE PROHIBITED AREA IS DEFINED ONLY IN THE SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE TABLE, AND A PLT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE DEFINITION PRINTED THERE IS COMPLETE AND CORRECT. THE NOTICE GIVEN ON THE MAP SIDE CHANGES THAT DEFINITION AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT TABLE. RATHER THAN 'NO AIR-TO- GND COMS' THE TABLE COULD SAY 'CONTACT PORTLAND FOR CHANGES'. THE CHARTS ARE 4 1/2 FT LONG AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE MAP FOR DETAILS. THE NOTICE ON THE MAP SIDE IS NOT CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CIRCULAR REPRESENTATION OF THE PROHIBITED AREA, NOR EVEN WITH THE WORDS 'PROHIBITED P-67' WHICH SEPARATE IT FROM THE INDICATED AREA. I SUGGEST THAT IN THE INTEREST OF ALL CONCERNED, THE CARTOGRAPHER SHOULD REPRESENT THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MAX EXPANSION OF THE PROHIBITED AREA ON THE CHART, IN DOTTED LINES OR OTHERWISE. ALSO, THE DAILY CHANGES IN ALT ARE AN INCONVENIENCE FOR ALL. IT WOULD EASE SAFETY CONCERNS AND INCREASE COMPLIANCE IF THE ALT WERE FIXED PERMANENTLY AT THE MAX. 3000 FT IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE IMPOSITION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES N OF P-67 IS PWN ARSA. RPTR CONTACTED APCH FOR CLRNC AND WAS ASKED IF HE WAS AWARE OF P-67. RESPONDING 'YES' HE WAS ASKED 'THEN WHY ARE YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF IT?' UPON THAT ITS CEILING WAS 1000 FT, CTLR INFORMED RPTR OF TEMPORARY EXPANDED STATE TO 3000 FT AND NOMINAL 3 MI. RPTR ASKED WHERE THAT INFO WAS AVAILABLE. IT WAS ON PWM ATIS. HOWEVER THAT IS WELL N OF P-67 AND WELL BEYOND RPTR'S DEP POINT. HE HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM FSDO AND RESPONDED.

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.