Narrative:

I am instrument rated MEL pilot who almost never flies VFR except for local instrument proficiency flying. My plane had just been extensively updated with new avionics, including a new LORAN which was to be IFR certified. I flew commercially to denver to fly the IFR certification flight and then to bring the plane home. The certification flight would be a round-robin from centennial airport to gll, mbw, sbf, gll and back to centennial, during which the accuracy of the LORAN would be determined. I fly into denver fairly frequently, but always IFR. Therefore I am comfortably oblivious of the existence of the denver TCA since I am always vectored in it by ATC. The IFR certification flight has to be conducted in VMC to accurately determine fixes for the certification process. The WX was cavu and no flight plan was filed. Although I had sectional and WAC charts on board, we were using low altitude en route charts because of the IFR intended use of the LORAN. I erroneously assumed I would receive a clearance and vectors through the TCA and did not think to get out the denver VFR terminal chart to familiarize myself with the TCA. After takeoff in a southerly direction I was given a right downwind departure. I requested a departure control frequency from tower, tuned it in and contacted departure for headings through the TCA. Departure claimed to be too busy to handle traffic and I believe I was told to remain clear of the TCA. Repeated attempts to get a reply from departure failed. My attention was diverted by the new equipment and by my desire to fly a precise track for the accuracy checks. I did maintain a good scan for other aircraft and did see two planes at a considerable distance that did not have any bearing on my track. However, I really did not have a mental picture of the TCA nor did I have an appreciation of my position relative to it. About 25 mi from centennial I climbed to 9500' for our cruise altitude, contacted denver center and was given a discrete code to squawk. Once idented I was given a phone number to call once back on the ground. The rest of the flight was uneventful. Returning to centennial I requested and was given a clearance and vectors through the TCA. When I called the number I was given I was advised by an FAA supervisor that I had traversed the TCA west/O clearance. The TCA concept is familiar to VFR pilots, but is not familiar to those of us who fly primarily IFR. This incident was unintentional, but not excusable. We need a better way to handle transient traffic through TCA's. Perhaps BFR's for instrument rated pilots should stress VFR access to the system because flying VFR really is more complex than flying IFR. In retrospect, I should have familiarized myself with the TCA and been more aware of my location instead of being diverted by the new equipment. An alternative would have been filing IFR until clear of the TCA and then cancelling IFR. As near as I can determine, traffic control personnel made no attempt to contact the aircraft transiting the TCA since I was monitoring the frequency and heard no such attempt. It appears they were satisfied to track the target, identify it when contact was eventually established, and then probably start disciplinary proceedings. Perhaps they should have been more interested in contacting the aircraft and diverting it away from the TCA. In summary, IFR pilots have to make a definite effort to remain familiar with VFR flying. ATC needs to be more helpful when requested for assistance around a TCA, and the FAA needs to be more focused on safe use of the system rather than on the endless pursuit of disciplinary actions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EXPERIENCED, IFR RATED PLT WHO SAYS HE ALWAYS FLIES IFR AND IS THEREFORE COMFORTABLY OBLIVIOUS OF TCA'S UNDERTAKES INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION FLT VFR AND FLIES COMPLETELY THROUGH A TCA WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: I AM INSTRUMENT RATED MEL PLT WHO ALMOST NEVER FLIES VFR EXCEPT FOR LCL INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY FLYING. MY PLANE HAD JUST BEEN EXTENSIVELY UPDATED WITH NEW AVIONICS, INCLUDING A NEW LORAN WHICH WAS TO BE IFR CERTIFIED. I FLEW COMMERCIALLY TO DENVER TO FLY THE IFR CERTIFICATION FLT AND THEN TO BRING THE PLANE HOME. THE CERTIFICATION FLT WOULD BE A ROUND-ROBIN FROM CENTENNIAL ARPT TO GLL, MBW, SBF, GLL AND BACK TO CENTENNIAL, DURING WHICH THE ACCURACY OF THE LORAN WOULD BE DETERMINED. I FLY INTO DENVER FAIRLY FREQUENTLY, BUT ALWAYS IFR. THEREFORE I AM COMFORTABLY OBLIVIOUS OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE DENVER TCA SINCE I AM ALWAYS VECTORED IN IT BY ATC. THE IFR CERTIFICATION FLT HAS TO BE CONDUCTED IN VMC TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE FIXES FOR THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS. THE WX WAS CAVU AND NO FLT PLAN WAS FILED. ALTHOUGH I HAD SECTIONAL AND WAC CHARTS ON BOARD, WE WERE USING LOW ALT ENRTE CHARTS BECAUSE OF THE IFR INTENDED USE OF THE LORAN. I ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED I WOULD RECEIVE A CLRNC AND VECTORS THROUGH THE TCA AND DID NOT THINK TO GET OUT THE DENVER VFR TERMINAL CHART TO FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH THE TCA. AFTER TKOF IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION I WAS GIVEN A R DOWNWIND DEP. I REQUESTED A DEP CONTROL FREQ FROM TWR, TUNED IT IN AND CONTACTED DEP FOR HDGS THROUGH THE TCA. DEP CLAIMED TO BE TOO BUSY TO HANDLE TFC AND I BELIEVE I WAS TOLD TO REMAIN CLR OF THE TCA. REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO GET A REPLY FROM DEP FAILED. MY ATTN WAS DIVERTED BY THE NEW EQUIP AND BY MY DESIRE TO FLY A PRECISE TRACK FOR THE ACCURACY CHKS. I DID MAINTAIN A GOOD SCAN FOR OTHER ACFT AND DID SEE TWO PLANES AT A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE THAT DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON MY TRACK. HOWEVER, I REALLY DID NOT HAVE A MENTAL PICTURE OF THE TCA NOR DID I HAVE AN APPRECIATION OF MY POS RELATIVE TO IT. ABOUT 25 MI FROM CENTENNIAL I CLBED TO 9500' FOR OUR CRUISE ALT, CONTACTED DENVER CENTER AND WAS GIVEN A DISCRETE CODE TO SQUAWK. ONCE IDENTED I WAS GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER TO CALL ONCE BACK ON THE GND. THE REST OF THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. RETURNING TO CENTENNIAL I REQUESTED AND WAS GIVEN A CLRNC AND VECTORS THROUGH THE TCA. WHEN I CALLED THE NUMBER I WAS GIVEN I WAS ADVISED BY AN FAA SUPVR THAT I HAD TRAVERSED THE TCA W/O CLRNC. THE TCA CONCEPT IS FAMILIAR TO VFR PLTS, BUT IS NOT FAMILIAR TO THOSE OF US WHO FLY PRIMARILY IFR. THIS INCIDENT WAS UNINTENTIONAL, BUT NOT EXCUSABLE. WE NEED A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE TRANSIENT TFC THROUGH TCA'S. PERHAPS BFR'S FOR INSTRUMENT RATED PLTS SHOULD STRESS VFR ACCESS TO THE SYS BECAUSE FLYING VFR REALLY IS MORE COMPLEX THAN FLYING IFR. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE FAMILIARIZED MYSELF WITH THE TCA AND BEEN MORE AWARE OF MY LOCATION INSTEAD OF BEING DIVERTED BY THE NEW EQUIP. AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN FILING IFR UNTIL CLR OF THE TCA AND THEN CANCELLING IFR. AS NEAR AS I CAN DETERMINE, TFC CTL PERSONNEL MADE NO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE ACFT TRANSITING THE TCA SINCE I WAS MONITORING THE FREQ AND HEARD NO SUCH ATTEMPT. IT APPEARS THEY WERE SATISFIED TO TRACK THE TARGET, IDENT IT WHEN CONTACT WAS EVENTUALLY ESTABLISHED, AND THEN PROBABLY START DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. PERHAPS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE INTERESTED IN CONTACTING THE ACFT AND DIVERTING IT AWAY FROM THE TCA. IN SUMMARY, IFR PLTS HAVE TO MAKE A DEFINITE EFFORT TO REMAIN FAMILIAR WITH VFR FLYING. ATC NEEDS TO BE MORE HELPFUL WHEN REQUESTED FOR ASSISTANCE AROUND A TCA, AND THE FAA NEEDS TO BE MORE FOCUSED ON SAFE USE OF THE SYS RATHER THAN ON THE ENDLESS PURSUIT OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.

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.