Narrative:

Departed baf runway 20, requested course reversal and landing in the opposite direction on runway 2. Tower approved and asked that we report on final. No other traffic at the time. Tower did not advise of potential airspace conflict and they did not suggest a procedure or profile or altitude for our course reversal. We climbed to 2500 ft MSL, turned right 90 degrees, then turned left 270 degrees to intercept final at about 8 NM. Advised tower that we were on final and they cleared us to land. On rollout tower asked our intentions. We requested repeat of above and tower replied, 'you can't do that again because you violated bdl's airspace.' we reviewed bdl class C and it appeared that we might have been briefly inside the outer tier about 400 ft above the floor. We had not previously checked airspace because it appeared entire procedure would remain within baf air traffic area. Profile we flew matched profile of baf VOR runway 2 procedure. That is no excuse but we feel the tower could have given us a 'heads up.' we were clearly on their frequency the whole time and nothing was said about switching to bdl approach although the procedure we requested would clearly come close to or impinge on the class C airspace. Visibility was unrestr and we were within sight of the baf tower the entire time. Since 1974, I've flown 6 month checks twice a yr every yr at either bdl or baf so know the area well but have never operated without active ATC participation, hence, no detailed awareness of the bdl class C structure. We flew 2 more circuits like the first but at 2000 ft and that was ok. No further comments from the tower. I don't know if any action is being taken. Again, no good excuses, should have known, feel the tower could have given us more help.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER APPROVING A REVERSAL PROC TO THE ARPT, A BAF CTLR REFUSED A SECOND REQUEST BY A LJ35 PLT AND ADMONISHED THE CREW FOR VIOLATING THE BDL AIRSPACE ADJACENT TO BAF.

Narrative: DEPARTED BAF RWY 20, REQUESTED COURSE REVERSAL AND LNDG IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ON RWY 2. TWR APPROVED AND ASKED THAT WE RPT ON FINAL. NO OTHER TFC AT THE TIME. TWR DID NOT ADVISE OF POTENTIAL AIRSPACE CONFLICT AND THEY DID NOT SUGGEST A PROC OR PROFILE OR ALT FOR OUR COURSE REVERSAL. WE CLBED TO 2500 FT MSL, TURNED R 90 DEGS, THEN TURNED L 270 DEGS TO INTERCEPT FINAL AT ABOUT 8 NM. ADVISED TWR THAT WE WERE ON FINAL AND THEY CLRED US TO LAND. ON ROLLOUT TWR ASKED OUR INTENTIONS. WE REQUESTED REPEAT OF ABOVE AND TWR REPLIED, 'YOU CAN'T DO THAT AGAIN BECAUSE YOU VIOLATED BDL'S AIRSPACE.' WE REVIEWED BDL CLASS C AND IT APPEARED THAT WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BRIEFLY INSIDE THE OUTER TIER ABOUT 400 FT ABOVE THE FLOOR. WE HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY CHKED AIRSPACE BECAUSE IT APPEARED ENTIRE PROC WOULD REMAIN WITHIN BAF ATA. PROFILE WE FLEW MATCHED PROFILE OF BAF VOR RWY 2 PROC. THAT IS NO EXCUSE BUT WE FEEL THE TWR COULD HAVE GIVEN US A 'HEADS UP.' WE WERE CLRLY ON THEIR FREQ THE WHOLE TIME AND NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT SWITCHING TO BDL APCH ALTHOUGH THE PROC WE REQUESTED WOULD CLRLY COME CLOSE TO OR IMPINGE ON THE CLASS C AIRSPACE. VISIBILITY WAS UNRESTR AND WE WERE WITHIN SIGHT OF THE BAF TWR THE ENTIRE TIME. SINCE 1974, I'VE FLOWN 6 MONTH CHKS TWICE A YR EVERY YR AT EITHER BDL OR BAF SO KNOW THE AREA WELL BUT HAVE NEVER OPERATED WITHOUT ACTIVE ATC PARTICIPATION, HENCE, NO DETAILED AWARENESS OF THE BDL CLASS C STRUCTURE. WE FLEW 2 MORE CIRCUITS LIKE THE FIRST BUT AT 2000 FT AND THAT WAS OK. NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE TWR. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY ACTION IS BEING TAKEN. AGAIN, NO GOOD EXCUSES, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, FEEL THE TWR COULD HAVE GIVEN US MORE HELP.

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.