Student pilot inadvertently penetrated arsa prior to receiving requested clearance.

Attributes
ACN	203569
Time
Date	199203
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : okc airport : oun
State Reference	OK
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3500 msl bound upper : 3500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : okc
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 1050
ASRS Report	203569
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : student
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence other other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified other controllera
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

My student departed norman westheimer airport on her first solo cross country, and headed west. This puts her near the bottom of the arsa at oklahoma city. She contacted departure control 3 times before getting a response from them. During this time, approximately 5 mins, she continued her right climb. The controller told the student to contact approach on a different frequency. By this time, the student had climbed into the arsa and new controller told the student she was making a 'major violation.' the student explained that she was a student pilot, and that she attempted contact several times. I feel that controllers should not talk to a student that way. The controller should let the student know that she had made a mistake, and taken more time to help the student. She feels that the controllers are 'mean,' and that she is scared to talk to them. The student was so frustrated by her treatment, that she does not want to continue her training. The main reason I am sending this report in is because this is not the first time I have heard similar tactics used by controllers. You cannot have students flying and being scared to talk to controllers. I have students that would rather go around an arsa than talk to one of the approach controllers. In conclusion, I see mistakes made by both the student and controller. The student should not have continued a climb into the arsa until she had established firm contact with ATC. She had only established contact but received no instruction. The first controller should have responded to the student in some way, even if she was busy with more important 'traffic.' I have already responded to the second controller's comments to my student. I feel that this is an extremely important issued because the system is creating pilots too scared to talk to ATC and controllers too busy to talk to light aircraft in VFR conditions. I need not mention the possible consequences.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STUDENT PLT INADVERTENTLY PENETRATED ARSA PRIOR TO RECEIVING REQUESTED CLRNC.

Narrative: MY STUDENT DEPARTED NORMAN WESTHEIMER ARPT ON HER FIRST SOLO XCOUNTRY, AND HEADED W. THIS PUTS HER NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE ARSA AT OKLAHOMA CITY. SHE CONTACTED DEP CTL 3 TIMES BEFORE GETTING A RESPONSE FROM THEM. DURING THIS TIME, APPROX 5 MINS, SHE CONTINUED HER R CLB. THE CTLR TOLD THE STUDENT TO CONTACT APCH ON A DIFFERENT FREQ. BY THIS TIME, THE STUDENT HAD CLBED INTO THE ARSA AND NEW CTLR TOLD THE STUDENT SHE WAS MAKING A 'MAJOR VIOLATION.' THE STUDENT EXPLAINED THAT SHE WAS A STUDENT PLT, AND THAT SHE ATTEMPTED CONTACT SEVERAL TIMES. I FEEL THAT CTLRS SHOULD NOT TALK TO A STUDENT THAT WAY. THE CTLR SHOULD LET THE STUDENT KNOW THAT SHE HAD MADE A MISTAKE, AND TAKEN MORE TIME TO HELP THE STUDENT. SHE FEELS THAT THE CTLRS ARE 'MEAN,' AND THAT SHE IS SCARED TO TALK TO THEM. THE STUDENT WAS SO FRUSTRATED BY HER TREATMENT, THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO CONTINUE HER TRAINING. THE MAIN REASON I AM SENDING THIS RPT IN IS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE HEARD SIMILAR TACTICS USED BY CTLRS. YOU CANNOT HAVE STUDENTS FLYING AND BEING SCARED TO TALK TO CTLRS. I HAVE STUDENTS THAT WOULD RATHER GO AROUND AN ARSA THAN TALK TO ONE OF THE APCH CTLRS. IN CONCLUSION, I SEE MISTAKES MADE BY BOTH THE STUDENT AND CTLR. THE STUDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED A CLB INTO THE ARSA UNTIL SHE HAD ESTABLISHED FIRM CONTACT WITH ATC. SHE HAD ONLY ESTABLISHED CONTACT BUT RECEIVED NO INSTRUCTION. THE FIRST CTLR SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO THE STUDENT IN SOME WAY, EVEN IF SHE WAS BUSY WITH MORE IMPORTANT 'TFC.' I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO THE SECOND CTLR'S COMMENTS TO MY STUDENT. I FEEL THAT THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUED BECAUSE THE SYS IS CREATING PLTS TOO SCARED TO TALK TO ATC AND CTLRS TOO BUSY TO TALK TO LIGHT ACFT IN VFR CONDITIONS. I NEED NOT MENTION THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES.

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.