Narrative:

We departed on an IFR flight plan. Flight plan altitude was 7000 ft. WX at departure: VFR, 3500 scattered. En route WX included numerous trw along the route; scattered clouds at 3000-5000 ft. The trw activity was widely scattered airmass-type activity. Departure was normal and we were cleared to our planned flight of 7000 ft and told to intercept V260, which we did. Arriving at our assigned altitude, I determined that the safest way to remain clear of any trw activity was to be allowed to deviate laterally to remain out of build-ups. I requested and received clearance to deviate laterally. Moderate deviations were accomplishing the goal as stated above until approximately 10-15 mi northwest of rnl. At this point, I noticed an area of developed activity ahead with ceilings slightly lower than my altitude, and tops well above, extending for an undetermined distance on either side of my intended route. I checked my sectionals to assure that terrain clearance would be sufficient to proceed safely under VFR, then requested and received cancellation of IFR. While concentrating on circumnaving the activity, yet while still ostensibly receiving radar service, I flew over lwb at 5000 ft MSL, below the top of their air traffic area by 300 ft. There did not appear to be any other traffic in the area and there was no apparent safety-of-flight problem such as a traffic conflict. I did not make contact with the tower at lwb and was not told to do by ATC. However, I'm not sure the extent to which center was actually providing me with radar service as they had not given me any advisories after the time I had cancelled my IFR plan. Shortly after overflying lwb, I requested and received, from center, a new IFR clearance to my destination, still retaining the same squawk code I had since departure from crw. I was apparently still in radar contact the entire time as ATC did not have to ask my position prior to giving me a new clearance. Finally, I suggest that VFR sectional charts be improved by delineating atas. Atas are the only controled airspace not delineated on the sectional charts. A pilot must, at best, approximate the linear dimensions of the air traffic area. The blue-colored airport symbol only indicates that a tower, and therefore an air traffic area, are present. In the case of lwb, the airport symbol is on one side (south) of the chart (cincinnati sectional), yet the air traffic area appears that it could extend onto the other side (north) of the chart. Because the airspace is not otherwise marked, it becomes nearly impossible to readily determine, under stressful conditions, if an incursion of the air traffic area of an airport, whose symbol is located near the edge of the reverse side of the chart, is about to occur.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA CANCELS IFR FOR WX AVOIDANCE BUT ENTERS ATA WITHOUT CONTACT. CONCERNED REF ATA NOT BEING MARKED ON CHART.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. FLT PLAN ALT WAS 7000 FT. WX AT DEP: VFR, 3500 SCATTERED. ENRTE WX INCLUDED NUMEROUS TRW ALONG THE RTE; SCATTERED CLOUDS AT 3000-5000 FT. THE TRW ACTIVITY WAS WIDELY SCATTERED AIRMASS-TYPE ACTIVITY. DEP WAS NORMAL AND WE WERE CLRED TO OUR PLANNED FLT OF 7000 FT AND TOLD TO INTERCEPT V260, WHICH WE DID. ARRIVING AT OUR ASSIGNED ALT, I DETERMINED THAT THE SAFEST WAY TO REMAIN CLR OF ANY TRW ACTIVITY WAS TO BE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE LATERALLY TO REMAIN OUT OF BUILD-UPS. I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED CLRNC TO DEVIATE LATERALLY. MODERATE DEVS WERE ACCOMPLISHING THE GOAL AS STATED ABOVE UNTIL APPROX 10-15 MI NW OF RNL. AT THIS POINT, I NOTICED AN AREA OF DEVELOPED ACTIVITY AHEAD WITH CEILINGS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN MY ALT, AND TOPS WELL ABOVE, EXTENDING FOR AN UNDETERMINED DISTANCE ON EITHER SIDE OF MY INTENDED RTE. I CHKED MY SECTIONALS TO ASSURE THAT TERRAIN CLRNC WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PROCEED SAFELY UNDER VFR, THEN REQUESTED AND RECEIVED CANCELLATION OF IFR. WHILE CONCENTRATING ON CIRCUMNAVING THE ACTIVITY, YET WHILE STILL OSTENSIBLY RECEIVING RADAR SVC, I FLEW OVER LWB AT 5000 FT MSL, BELOW THE TOP OF THEIR ATA BY 300 FT. THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY OTHER TFC IN THE AREA AND THERE WAS NO APPARENT SAFETY-OF-FLT PROBLEM SUCH AS A TFC CONFLICT. I DID NOT MAKE CONTACT WITH THE TWR AT LWB AND WAS NOT TOLD TO DO BY ATC. HOWEVER, I'M NOT SURE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CTR WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDING ME WITH RADAR SVC AS THEY HAD NOT GIVEN ME ANY ADVISORIES AFTER THE TIME I HAD CANCELLED MY IFR PLAN. SHORTLY AFTER OVERFLYING LWB, I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED, FROM CTR, A NEW IFR CLRNC TO MY DEST, STILL RETAINING THE SAME SQUAWK CODE I HAD SINCE DEP FROM CRW. I WAS APPARENTLY STILL IN RADAR CONTACT THE ENTIRE TIME AS ATC DID NOT HAVE TO ASK MY POS PRIOR TO GIVING ME A NEW CLRNC. FINALLY, I SUGGEST THAT VFR SECTIONAL CHARTS BE IMPROVED BY DELINEATING ATAS. ATAS ARE THE ONLY CTLED AIRSPACE NOT DELINEATED ON THE SECTIONAL CHARTS. A PLT MUST, AT BEST, APPROXIMATE THE LINEAR DIMENSIONS OF THE ATA. THE BLUE-COLORED ARPT SYMBOL ONLY INDICATES THAT A TWR, AND THEREFORE AN ATA, ARE PRESENT. IN THE CASE OF LWB, THE ARPT SYMBOL IS ON ONE SIDE (S) OF THE CHART (CINCINNATI SECTIONAL), YET THE ATA APPEARS THAT IT COULD EXTEND ONTO THE OTHER SIDE (N) OF THE CHART. BECAUSE THE AIRSPACE IS NOT OTHERWISE MARKED, IT BECOMES NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO READILY DETERMINE, UNDER STRESSFUL CONDITIONS, IF AN INCURSION OF THE ATA OF AN ARPT, WHOSE SYMBOL IS LOCATED NEAR THE EDGE OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE CHART, IS ABOUT TO OCCUR.

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.