Narrative:

During descent into cos from near the ALS VOR it was apparent that a thunderstorm cell was over publication which is on the preferred arrival routing. After a discussion with my first officer who was flying the leg, we requested and received clearance to deviate left of course for WX. At this time I left center frequency to obtain ATIS and gate information from operations. While I was off frequency the controller issued a clearance to turn left 10 degrees and intercept the 213 degree radial from cos. While I was off, I observed the first officer turn the aircraft 10 degrees left and dial in the 213 degree radial in the course selector. After I returned to center frequency, the first officer briefed me on the issued clearance. After looking at our heading and intended intercept radial, it was clear that the issued heading was not going to intercept the issued radial. We decided to query ATC on our clearance. However, the controller was very busy with other VFR and IFR traffic. When the frequency cleared we requested verification of the assigned heading and intended radial off of the cos VOR. At this point the controller reissued the original clearance then, without pause, issued a 30 degree turn to the left for intercept, immediately followed by a clearance to turn 50 degrees left for the intercept. At this point we were being vectored towards very high terrain to the west of the airport and made a comment to that effect to the controller. As we intercepted the 213 degree radial we were handed off to cos approach without further comment from the controller. During our departure from cos we were informed by our operations that we were to call ZDV upon our arrival. Subsequent discussion with an ATC supervisor revealed that we did in fact penetrate R-2601 by 1 1/2 mi. I feel that if I had not been off frequency during the original clearance we would have questioned the clearance right then. I feel that the controller was a bit overloaded and that we should have questioned the controller sooner to avoid the problem. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this reporter's aircraft was not on an assigned heading while deviating for the WX. The 10 degree heading change was assigned and the controller states that an additional 10 degree turn had also been issued, but the flight crew disagrees. At the time of the flight crew's query to ATC, they were still using the high altitude chart, and were not yet clear on the dimensions of the restr airspace. Aircraft involved was a B737-200.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WHILE DEVIATING FOR WX, AN ACR FLC WAS GIVEN A HDG CHANGE TO INTERCEPT A RADIAL INBOUND TO COS, BUT THEN DISCOVERED THAT THE VECTOR WOULD NOT INTERCEPT THE RADIAL. IN THE PROCESS OF QUERYING THE CTLR AND OBTAINING A NEW VECTOR, THE FLC ENTERED R-2601 AIRSPACE.

Narrative: DURING DSCNT INTO COS FROM NEAR THE ALS VOR IT WAS APPARENT THAT A TSTM CELL WAS OVER PUB WHICH IS ON THE PREFERRED ARR ROUTING. AFTER A DISCUSSION WITH MY FO WHO WAS FLYING THE LEG, WE REQUESTED AND RECEIVED CLRNC TO DEVIATE L OF COURSE FOR WX. AT THIS TIME I LEFT CTR FREQ TO OBTAIN ATIS AND GATE INFO FROM OPS. WHILE I WAS OFF FREQ THE CTLR ISSUED A CLRNC TO TURN L 10 DEGS AND INTERCEPT THE 213 DEG RADIAL FROM COS. WHILE I WAS OFF, I OBSERVED THE FO TURN THE ACFT 10 DEGS L AND DIAL IN THE 213 DEG RADIAL IN THE COURSE SELECTOR. AFTER I RETURNED TO CTR FREQ, THE FO BRIEFED ME ON THE ISSUED CLRNC. AFTER LOOKING AT OUR HDG AND INTENDED INTERCEPT RADIAL, IT WAS CLR THAT THE ISSUED HDG WAS NOT GOING TO INTERCEPT THE ISSUED RADIAL. WE DECIDED TO QUERY ATC ON OUR CLRNC. HOWEVER, THE CTLR WAS VERY BUSY WITH OTHER VFR AND IFR TFC. WHEN THE FREQ CLRED WE REQUESTED VERIFICATION OF THE ASSIGNED HDG AND INTENDED RADIAL OFF OF THE COS VOR. AT THIS POINT THE CTLR REISSUED THE ORIGINAL CLRNC THEN, WITHOUT PAUSE, ISSUED A 30 DEG TURN TO THE L FOR INTERCEPT, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY A CLRNC TO TURN 50 DEGS L FOR THE INTERCEPT. AT THIS POINT WE WERE BEING VECTORED TOWARDS VERY HIGH TERRAIN TO THE W OF THE ARPT AND MADE A COMMENT TO THAT EFFECT TO THE CTLR. AS WE INTERCEPTED THE 213 DEG RADIAL WE WERE HANDED OFF TO COS APCH WITHOUT FURTHER COMMENT FROM THE CTLR. DURING OUR DEP FROM COS WE WERE INFORMED BY OUR OPS THAT WE WERE TO CALL ZDV UPON OUR ARR. SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION WITH AN ATC SUPVR REVEALED THAT WE DID IN FACT PENETRATE R-2601 BY 1 1/2 MI. I FEEL THAT IF I HAD NOT BEEN OFF FREQ DURING THE ORIGINAL CLRNC WE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CLRNC RIGHT THEN. I FEEL THAT THE CTLR WAS A BIT OVERLOADED AND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CTLR SOONER TO AVOID THE PROB. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS RPTR'S ACFT WAS NOT ON AN ASSIGNED HDG WHILE DEVIATING FOR THE WX. THE 10 DEG HDG CHANGE WAS ASSIGNED AND THE CTLR STATES THAT AN ADDITIONAL 10 DEG TURN HAD ALSO BEEN ISSUED, BUT THE FLC DISAGREES. AT THE TIME OF THE FLC'S QUERY TO ATC, THEY WERE STILL USING THE HIGH ALT CHART, AND WERE NOT YET CLR ON THE DIMENSIONS OF THE RESTR AIRSPACE. ACFT INVOLVED WAS A B737-200.

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.