Narrative:

I'm writing this letter to inform you of a possible pilot VFR deviation. On apr/tue/04, I was flying VFR and I was cleared to enter class B airspace via the shoreline route. The current VFR terminal area chart has the published altitudes from 2500-4000 ft. Relying on my current VFR chart, I maintained an altitude of 3500 ft but after landing at my destination, I was told to write down a telephone number because of the possibility of a VFR deviation of altitude. When I called this number, I was informed that I did not maintain the proper altitude of 3500-4500 ft that is required for the shoreline route. This altitude is a different altitude than the one published in my current VFR terminal area chart. I was informed that I deviated below the minimum altitude of 3500 ft. What I don't understand is that if my current VFR terminal area chart states the required altitude is between 2500-4000 ft and ATC requirement is between 3500-4500 ft and I maintained my altitude above the current published minimum requirement, why was I accused of an altitude deviation? I believe that pilots flying by the current published information in their charts should not be accused of a possible VFR pilot deviation. I also believe that ATC should not hold you accountable for a new/different regulation that they are using, which is not in compliance with the pilot's current charts. I believe that it is a good practice for ATC not to impose a new/different regulation on pilots using current charts which are different from theirs until the next current published chart becomes available, because the pilot has no way of knowing that the information in their current charts is not being used by ATC or that different regulations have been added or deleted.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C152 PLT UTILIZING VFR FLY THROUGH RTE NEAR LAX IS QUESTIONED BY ATC REGARDING ALT.

Narrative: I'M WRITING THIS LETTER TO INFORM YOU OF A POSSIBLE PLT VFR DEV. ON APR/TUE/04, I WAS FLYING VFR AND I WAS CLRED TO ENTER CLASS B AIRSPACE VIA THE SHORELINE RTE. THE CURRENT VFR TERMINAL AREA CHART HAS THE PUBLISHED ALTS FROM 2500-4000 FT. RELYING ON MY CURRENT VFR CHART, I MAINTAINED AN ALT OF 3500 FT BUT AFTER LNDG AT MY DEST, I WAS TOLD TO WRITE DOWN A TELEPHONE NUMBER BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A VFR DEV OF ALT. WHEN I CALLED THIS NUMBER, I WAS INFORMED THAT I DID NOT MAINTAIN THE PROPER ALT OF 3500-4500 FT THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE SHORELINE RTE. THIS ALT IS A DIFFERENT ALT THAN THE ONE PUBLISHED IN MY CURRENT VFR TERMINAL AREA CHART. I WAS INFORMED THAT I DEVIATED BELOW THE MINIMUM ALT OF 3500 FT. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT IF MY CURRENT VFR TERMINAL AREA CHART STATES THE REQUIRED ALT IS BTWN 2500-4000 FT AND ATC REQUIREMENT IS BTWN 3500-4500 FT AND I MAINTAINED MY ALT ABOVE THE CURRENT PUBLISHED MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, WHY WAS I ACCUSED OF AN ALTDEV? I BELIEVE THAT PLTS FLYING BY THE CURRENT PUBLISHED INFO IN THEIR CHARTS SHOULD NOT BE ACCUSED OF A POSSIBLE VFR PLTDEV. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ATC SHOULD NOT HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR A NEW/DIFFERENT REG THAT THEY ARE USING, WHICH IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLT'S CURRENT CHARTS. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS A GOOD PRACTICE FOR ATC NOT TO IMPOSE A NEW/DIFFERENT REG ON PLTS USING CURRENT CHARTS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT FROM THEIRS UNTIL THE NEXT CURRENT PUBLISHED CHART BECOMES AVAILABLE, BECAUSE THE PLT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THE INFO IN THEIR CURRENT CHARTS IS NOT BEING USED BY ATC OR THAT DIFFERENT REGS HAVE BEEN ADDED OR DELETED.

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.