Narrative:

On feb/tue/93, I was leading a 2-SHIP formation of fgt aircraft into buckley angb, denver, co, at approximately XX00L and at 35 mi northeast of denver I was handed off VFR from ZDV flight following to denver approach on frequency 307.3. I was given clearance into the TCA by denver approach and the female controller gave me 7000 ft as my altitude and a heading of 180 degrees. After passing aurora airport and front range airport, the controller said 'cleared own navigation direct buckley, contact buckley tower.' I then contacted buckley tower and they advised the tower of my request for the visual approach as I had also with denver approach earlier. I proceeded to the overhead pattern at 7200 ft and I was behind an MTR and an mlt both on straight-in final. Just as I was about 6O pitch out, the mlt had a nosewheel failure and closed the active runway, forcing the mlt to go around. In the meantime I was now directly over buckley headed north. I could see stapleton airport nearby and turned hard right to reenter the initial at buckley. The tower was still transmitting steadily to the MTR (no break) and giving him directions on how to turn off and what his problem appeared to be. Meanwhile back at 7200 ft and 300 KIAS I was reentering the overhead and trying to talk to the tower. At 90 degrees to the runway 32 and approximately 1 NM east of the field heading south, the tower finally contacted me and directed me to 'report initial.' I reentered initial and both aircraft pitched out and landed without problem. Later while filing our flight plan to abq, the ATC liaison at buckley advised me of ZDV's 'bells' going off when I crossed I-70. I told him I was a transient aircraft not familiar with this restriction and was given no direction by either tower or approach. He asked me to make a statement and left. It was 3 days later that my superiors advised me that I was being violated. Some thoughts come to mind: visual approach -- need to have field in sight or see an aircraft directed to follow. Controller should have asked me. Violations -- I thought violation only came from breaking a clearance or restriction. I was given neither. The local agreement with buckley states that the field must be in sight to be cleared the visual approach. I believe the emergency MTR task saturated the tower at the wrong time causing me to turn in a direction to avoid the mlt on the go around but somehow clip the boundary of stapleton (that I had no knowledge of). Since military pilots only have call signs violated I will only (hopefully) have to answer to my superiors, but I feel I did nothing wrong and at best avoided a possible close call with the mlt.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ERRONEOUS PENETRATION OF AIRSPACE, PROX OF TCA BY 2 MIL FGT'S IN A GAR.

Narrative: ON FEB/TUE/93, I WAS LEADING A 2-SHIP FORMATION OF FGT ACFT INTO BUCKLEY ANGB, DENVER, CO, AT APPROX XX00L AND AT 35 MI NE OF DENVER I WAS HANDED OFF VFR FROM ZDV FLT FOLLOWING TO DENVER APCH ON FREQ 307.3. I WAS GIVEN CLRNC INTO THE TCA BY DENVER APCH AND THE FEMALE CTLR GAVE ME 7000 FT AS MY ALT AND A HDG OF 180 DEGS. AFTER PASSING AURORA ARPT AND FRONT RANGE ARPT, THE CTLR SAID 'CLRED OWN NAV DIRECT BUCKLEY, CONTACT BUCKLEY TWR.' I THEN CONTACTED BUCKLEY TWR AND THEY ADVISED THE TWR OF MY REQUEST FOR THE VISUAL APCH AS I HAD ALSO WITH DENVER APCH EARLIER. I PROCEEDED TO THE OVERHEAD PATTERN AT 7200 FT AND I WAS BEHIND AN MTR AND AN MLT BOTH ON STRAIGHT-IN FINAL. JUST AS I WAS ABOUT 6O PITCH OUT, THE MLT HAD A NOSEWHEEL FAILURE AND CLOSED THE ACTIVE RWY, FORCING THE MLT TO GAR. IN THE MEANTIME I WAS NOW DIRECTLY OVER BUCKLEY HEADED N. I COULD SEE STAPLETON ARPT NEARBY AND TURNED HARD R TO REENTER THE INITIAL AT BUCKLEY. THE TWR WAS STILL XMITTING STEADILY TO THE MTR (NO BREAK) AND GIVING HIM DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO TURN OFF AND WHAT HIS PROB APPEARED TO BE. MEANWHILE BACK AT 7200 FT AND 300 KIAS I WAS REENTERING THE OVERHEAD AND TRYING TO TALK TO THE TWR. AT 90 DEGS TO THE RWY 32 AND APPROX 1 NM E OF THE FIELD HDG S, THE TWR FINALLY CONTACTED ME AND DIRECTED ME TO 'RPT INITIAL.' I REENTERED INITIAL AND BOTH ACFT PITCHED OUT AND LANDED WITHOUT PROB. LATER WHILE FILING OUR FLT PLAN TO ABQ, THE ATC LIAISON AT BUCKLEY ADVISED ME OF ZDV'S 'BELLS' GOING OFF WHEN I CROSSED I-70. I TOLD HIM I WAS A TRANSIENT ACFT NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS RESTRICTION AND WAS GIVEN NO DIRECTION BY EITHER TWR OR APCH. HE ASKED ME TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND LEFT. IT WAS 3 DAYS LATER THAT MY SUPERIORS ADVISED ME THAT I WAS BEING VIOLATED. SOME THOUGHTS COME TO MIND: VISUAL APCH -- NEED TO HAVE FIELD IN SIGHT OR SEE AN ACFT DIRECTED TO FOLLOW. CTLR SHOULD HAVE ASKED ME. VIOLATIONS -- I THOUGHT VIOLATION ONLY CAME FROM BREAKING A CLRNC OR RESTRICTION. I WAS GIVEN NEITHER. THE LCL AGREEMENT WITH BUCKLEY STATES THAT THE FIELD MUST BE IN SIGHT TO BE CLRED THE VISUAL APCH. I BELIEVE THE EMER MTR TASK SATURATED THE TWR AT THE WRONG TIME CAUSING ME TO TURN IN A DIRECTION TO AVOID THE MLT ON THE GAR BUT SOMEHOW CLIP THE BOUNDARY OF STAPLETON (THAT I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF). SINCE MIL PLTS ONLY HAVE CALL SIGNS VIOLATED I WILL ONLY (HOPEFULLY) HAVE TO ANSWER TO MY SUPERIORS, BUT I FEEL I DID NOTHING WRONG AND AT BEST AVOIDED A POSSIBLE CLOSE CALL WITH THE MLT.

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.