Narrative:

The incident occurred on fri/march/03, on a flight conducted for the purpose of participating en route and terminal instrument procedures. I acted as PIC and had as my safety pilot a cfii with a current instructor's license. The WX was mixed IMC and VMC. After checking WX, I filed an IFR flight plan from my home airport, jyo, to lns as well as one for the return flight. The flight to lns was uneventful, as were multiple instrument apches. Following the last approach we made a full stop landing, and picked up our clearance to return to jyo. The routing assigned was via V143 to mulrr intersection, direct armel, direct jyo. Departure was uneventful, and we intercepted V143. We noted a southeast wind which required me to apply some correction to the left, however both VOR's showed us to be within 2 degrees of the airway centerline (the VOR's were within 1 to 2 degrees agreement). We were handed off from harrisburg approach control to baltimore approach control. Mulrr intersection lies in proximity to the southeast border of P-40, the airspace surrounding camp david, md. Approximately one quarter to one half mile northeast of mulrr intersection, I initiated a left turn in the direction of armel, our next fix. After completing about half of this turn to approximately 190 degrees, baltimore approach informed us that we were inside P-40, and to immediately turn to a heading of 180 degrees. Moments after we rolled out on that heading we were ordered to turn further left to 090 degrees, which we immediately did. Subsequently we were vectored back to a southerly heading. Shortly thereafter we were handed off to washington center. After we established contact, washington instructed us to proceed direct to mulrr, even though by now we were well south-southwest of mulrr, and to return to mulrr would have taken us in the opposite direction from our destination. Prior to our initiating the turn to mulrr however, we were given instead a vector toward our destination, jyo. We performed an uneventful approach in IMC and landed. As requested, I contacted both baltimore approach and washington center by telephone after landing. Baltimore informed me that they showed us proceeding 'westbound' into P-40. Although we certainly were traveling southwest bound (courses of 248 degrees and 245 degrees on V143), we never knowingly proceeded strictly westbound. In the telephone conversations, either baltimore or washington also stated that we were in a right turn, however this is difficult to understand, since our flight plan required us to, and we did, turn left at mulrr. Most significantly, based upon our navigation down V143 and our appropriate left turn, we are unable to explain how we could have been, as alleged, inside P-40. Once we had completed the turns as directed by the vectors given us to the south, then east, it was also not clear why we were then told to proceed direct back to mulrr, in the opposite direction from our destination. These seeming inconsistencies led us to wonder if we might have been momentarily confused with another aircraft. Both the instructor and I are locally based and familiar with the airspace, and the instructor had flown the same route on the preceding week uneventfully. Additionally, prior to the alleged transgression, we did not receive a radio transmission indicating that our course made it likely that we would enter P-40. Based upon our instrument indications I do not believe that we could have entered P-40. However, in reviewing the en route charts, I discovered a chart discrepancy that may provide an explanation. We were navigating using nos IFR low altitude en route L-24. We identified mulrr using DME from lancaster VOR. The fix prior to mulrr is hyper, which is 50 DME from lancaster. The route segment between hyper and mulrr is published as 8 NM on this chart, putting mulrr at 58 DME from lancaster. Thus we had initiated our left turn immediately prior to reaching 58 DME. To corroborate this, I looked up this sector on L-28, which has overlapping coverage of the area in question. Interestingly, L-28 notes the route segment between hyper and mulrr to be 6 NM, not 8. Adding up the route segments between lancaster and martinsburg on this airway yields the correct total of 84 NM when 6 NM is used for the distance between hyper and mulrr, on L-24, where that segment is published as 8 NM, the segments do not add up to the published 84, but instead to 86 miles. This suggests that the 8 NM published on L-24 is an error. (To get a 'third opinion', I checked the current low altitude chart for this area, low en route 47. This chart also states the distance between hyper and mulrr to be 6 miles. However, it lists hyper as being 51 DME from lancaster, not 50 as on the nos charts). If the correct distance from hyper to mulrr is 6 NM and not 8, then we flew 2 miles past mulrr, looking for 58 DME instead of 56, based upon the publishing error on the chart. Two miles past mulrr is robrt intersection, which appears to intersect the 5 NM radius border of P-40. Recommendation: the area in question is high traffic density airspace, and the airway and intersections described come in extremely close proximity to the prohibited area. My recommendation, in addition to correcting any errors on the en route charts, is to establish different routings in this area that will keep traffic at greater distances from the borders of prohibited airspace.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GENERAL AVIATION PLT ENTERS PROHIBITED AREA P-40 WHILE ENRTE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN.

Narrative: THE INCIDENT OCCURRED ON FRI/MARCH/03, ON A FLT CONDUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING ENRTE AND TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCS. I ACTED AS PIC AND HAD AS MY SAFETY PLT A CFII WITH A CURRENT INSTRUCTOR'S LICENSE. THE WX WAS MIXED IMC AND VMC. AFTER CHECKING WX, I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN FROM MY HOME ARPT, JYO, TO LNS AS WELL AS ONE FOR THE RETURN FLT. THE FLT TO LNS WAS UNEVENTFUL, AS WERE MULTIPLE INSTRUMENT APCHES. FOLLOWING THE LAST APCH WE MADE A FULL STOP LNDG, AND PICKED UP OUR CLRNC TO RETURN TO JYO. THE ROUTING ASSIGNED WAS VIA V143 TO MULRR INTXN, DIRECT ARMEL, DIRECT JYO. DEP WAS UNEVENTFUL, AND WE INTERCEPTED V143. WE NOTED A SE WIND WHICH REQUIRED ME TO APPLY SOME CORRECTION TO THE L, HOWEVER BOTH VOR'S SHOWED US TO BE WITHIN 2 DEGS OF THE AIRWAY CENTERLINE (THE VOR'S WERE WITHIN 1 TO 2 DEGS AGREEMENT). WE WERE HANDED OFF FROM HARRISBURG APCH CTL TO BALTIMORE APCH CTL. MULRR INTXN LIES IN PROXIMITY TO THE SE BORDER OF P-40, THE AIRSPACE SURROUNDING CAMP DAVID, MD. APPROX ONE QUARTER TO ONE HALF MILE NE OF MULRR INTXN, I INITIATED A L TURN IN THE DIRECTION OF ARMEL, OUR NEXT FIX. AFTER COMPLETING ABOUT HALF OF THIS TURN TO APPROX 190 DEGS, BALTIMORE APCH INFORMED US THAT WE WERE INSIDE P-40, AND TO IMMEDIATELY TURN TO A HEADING OF 180 DEGS. MOMENTS AFTER WE ROLLED OUT ON THAT HEADING WE WERE ORDERED TO TURN FURTHER LEFT TO 090 DEGS, WHICH WE IMMEDIATELY DID. SUBSEQUENTLY WE WERE VECTORED BACK TO A SOUTHERLY HEADING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE WERE HANDED OFF TO WASHINGTON CENTER. AFTER WE ESTABLISHED CONTACT, WASHINGTON INSTRUCTED US TO PROCEED DIRECT TO MULRR, EVEN THOUGH BY NOW WE WERE WELL SOUTH-SW OF MULRR, AND TO RETURN TO MULRR WOULD HAVE TAKEN US IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM OUR DESTINATION. PRIOR TO OUR INITIATING THE TURN TO MULRR HOWEVER, WE WERE GIVEN INSTEAD A VECTOR TOWARD OUR DESTINATION, JYO. WE PERFORMED AN UNEVENTFUL APCH IN IMC AND LANDED. AS REQUESTED, I CONTACTED BOTH BALTIMORE APCH AND WASHINGTON CENTER BY TELEPHONE AFTER LNDG. BALTIMORE INFORMED ME THAT THEY SHOWED US PROCEEDING 'WBND' INTO P-40. ALTHOUGH WE CERTAINLY WERE TRAVELING SW BOUND (COURSES OF 248 DEGS AND 245 DEGS ON V143), WE NEVER KNOWINGLY PROCEEDED STRICTLY WBND. IN THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS, EITHER BALTIMORE OR WASHINGTON ALSO STATED THAT WE WERE IN A R TURN, HOWEVER THIS IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, SINCE OUR FLT PLAN REQUIRED US TO, AND WE DID, TURN L AT MULRR. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, BASED UPON OUR NAVIGATION DOWN V143 AND OUR APPROPRIATE L TURN, WE ARE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW WE COULD HAVE BEEN, AS ALLEGED, INSIDE P-40. ONCE WE HAD COMPLETED THE TURNS AS DIRECTED BY THE VECTORS GIVEN US TO THE S, THEN E, IT WAS ALSO NOT CLEAR WHY WE WERE THEN TOLD TO PROCEED DIRECT BACK TO MULRR, IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM OUR DESTINATION. THESE SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES LED US TO WONDER IF WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MOMENTARILY CONFUSED WITH ANOTHER ACFT. BOTH THE INSTRUCTOR AND I ARE LOCALLY BASED AND FAMILIAR WITH THE AIRSPACE, AND THE INSTRUCTOR HAD FLOWN THE SAME RTE ON THE PRECEDING WEEK UNEVENTFULLY. ADDITIONALLY, PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED TRANSGRESSION, WE DID NOT RECEIVE A RADIO XMISSION INDICATING THAT OUR COURSE MADE IT LIKELY THAT WE WOULD ENTER P-40. BASED UPON OUR INSTRUMENT INDICATIONS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE COULD HAVE ENTERED P-40. HOWEVER, IN REVIEWING THE ENRTE CHARTS, I DISCOVERED A CHART DISCREPANCY THAT MAY PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION. WE WERE NAVIGATING USING NOS IFR LOW ALT ENRTE L-24. WE IDENTIFIED MULRR USING DME FROM LANCASTER VOR. THE FIX PRIOR TO MULRR IS HYPER, WHICH IS 50 DME FROM LANCASTER. THE RTE SEGMENT BTWN HYPER AND MULRR IS PUBLISHED AS 8 NM ON THIS CHART, PUTTING MULRR AT 58 DME FROM LANCASTER. THUS WE HAD INITIATED OUR L TURN IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO REACHING 58 DME. TO CORROBORATE THIS, I LOOKED UP THIS SECTOR ON L-28, WHICH HAS OVERLAPPING COVERAGE OF THE AREA IN QUESTION. INTERESTINGLY, L-28 NOTES THE RTE SEGMENT BTWN HYPER AND MULRR TO BE 6 NM, NOT 8. ADDING UP THE RTE SEGMENTS BTWN LANCASTER AND MARTINSBURG ON THIS AIRWAY YIELDS THE CORRECT TOTAL OF 84 NM WHEN 6 NM IS USED FOR THE DISTANCE BTWN HYPER AND MULRR, ON L-24, WHERE THAT SEGMENT IS PUBLISHED AS 8 NM, THE SEGMENTS DO NOT ADD UP TO THE PUBLISHED 84, BUT INSTEAD TO 86 MILES. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE 8 NM PUBLISHED ON L-24 IS AN ERROR. (TO GET A 'THIRD OPINION', I CHECKED THE CURRENT LOW ALT CHART FOR THIS AREA, LOW ENRTE 47. THIS CHART ALSO STATES THE DISTANCE BTWN HYPER AND MULRR TO BE 6 MILES. HOWEVER, IT LISTS HYPER AS BEING 51 DME FROM LANCASTER, NOT 50 AS ON THE NOS CHARTS). IF THE CORRECT DISTANCE FROM HYPER TO MULRR IS 6 NM AND NOT 8, THEN WE FLEW 2 MILES PAST MULRR, LOOKING FOR 58 DME INSTEAD OF 56, BASED UPON THE PUBLISHING ERROR ON THE CHART. TWO MILES PAST MULRR IS ROBRT INTXN, WHICH APPEARS TO INTERSECT THE 5 NM RADIUS BORDER OF P-40. RECOMMENDATION: THE AREA IN QUESTION IS HIGH TFC DENSITY AIRSPACE, AND THE AIRWAY AND INTERSECTIONS DESCRIBED COME IN EXTREMELY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROHIBITED AREA. MY RECOMMENDATION, IN ADDITION TO CORRECTING ANY ERRORS ON THE ENRTE CHARTS, IS TO ESTABLISH DIFFERENT ROUTINGS IN THIS AREA THAT WILL KEEP TFC AT GREATER DISTANCES FROM THE BORDERS OF PROHIBITED AIRSPACE.

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.