Narrative:

I contacted clearance delivery at lunkin field, cincinnati, and advised them that my plane was a golden eagle, that I wanted to depart VFR, that my heading would be 315 degrees, and that I would cruise at 6500 ft. At some point, ATC asked me of my destination airport. I was cleared for takeoff on runway 21, and advised to maintain runway heading. At some distance from lunkin field, I was turned on course. While inside of the lunkin class D airspace, I entered the cincinnati class B airspace. I was fully expecting lunkin tower to hand me off to cincinnati approach, however that did not happen. I evaluated the situation, and presumed that as I understand aim paragraph 3-2-4.G.1, that I was to be in contact with lunkin tower (the secondary tower), due to the coincidental airspace. I have since studied the situation, and realize that I was erroneous in my understanding of this situation. I am a current multi-engine flight instructor, and attend annual recertification required by the insurance company on the cessna 421 I fly. The majority of flts I undertake are on IFR flight plans, wherein this sort of occurrence would not have occurred. Somehow, the subtle significance of contacting clearance delivery, VFR, and not automatically being given departure service slipped by me that day. The same guys that send me on my way IFR, on the same frequency, apparently (and within FAA procedures) turned me on course and subsequently ignored me. It is interesting that an arriving VFR aircraft is assumed to be requesting advisories, while a departing one is assumed to not be making such a request. My concern is that in spite of my currency, and my attention to flying, that this subject (the fact that VFR departures must ask for advisories) wasn't in my thoughts at the time I departed lunkin that day. I am dismayed, that apparently the lunkin tower, knowing my course, altitude climbing to, and having directed me in a way which placed me further into class C airspace, apparently gave up on me without so much as a further word. Had the lunkin tower (let alone advising me to contact departure) merely said, 'leaving lunkin airspace.' I would have picked up on the fact that I wasn't being followed. While I believe the aim supports the appearance that my failure to contact cincinnati approach was my shortcoming, I also believe that the lunkin tower, fully cognizant of my intentions, allowed me to blunder into cincinnati class C airspace. I know that as the PIC I am responsible, yet I am curious as to why given the nature of my flight, lunkin tower would not be required to provide separation services unless I specifically request otherwise. It seems to me, that at all other times, that is upon contacting ATC, this would be the case. I am not specifically questioning lunkin tower, rather I question the procedure of not offering separation unless it is requested. This seems to me like it should be the other way around. Unless definite steps are taken to include awareness of this fact in training and recurrent training syllabus, I predict this airspace incursion by other pilots will be likely.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORPORATE C421 PLT PENETRATES CVG CLASS B EXPECTING XFER OF CTL SVC FROM LUK TWR TO CVG APCH CTL.

Narrative: I CONTACTED CLRNC DELIVERY AT LUNKIN FIELD, CINCINNATI, AND ADVISED THEM THAT MY PLANE WAS A GOLDEN EAGLE, THAT I WANTED TO DEPART VFR, THAT MY HEADING WOULD BE 315 DEGS, AND THAT I WOULD CRUISE AT 6500 FT. AT SOME POINT, ATC ASKED ME OF MY DEST ARPT. I WAS CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 21, AND ADVISED TO MAINTAIN RWY HEADING. AT SOME DISTANCE FROM LUNKIN FIELD, I WAS TURNED ON COURSE. WHILE INSIDE OF THE LUNKIN CLASS D AIRSPACE, I ENTERED THE CINCINNATI CLASS B AIRSPACE. I WAS FULLY EXPECTING LUNKIN TWR TO HAND ME OFF TO CINCINNATI APCH, HOWEVER THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. I EVALUATED THE SIT, AND PRESUMED THAT AS I UNDERSTAND AIM PARAGRAPH 3-2-4.G.1, THAT I WAS TO BE IN CONTACT WITH LUNKIN TWR (THE SECONDARY TWR), DUE TO THE COINCIDENTAL AIRSPACE. I HAVE SINCE STUDIED THE SIT, AND REALIZE THAT I WAS ERRONEOUS IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS SIT. I AM A CURRENT MULTI-ENG FLT INSTRUCTOR, AND ATTEND ANNUAL RECERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE CESSNA 421 I FLY. THE MAJORITY OF FLTS I UNDERTAKE ARE ON IFR FLT PLANS, WHEREIN THIS SORT OF OCCURRENCE WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. SOMEHOW, THE SUBTLE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONTACTING CLRNC DELIVERY, VFR, AND NOT AUTOMATICALLY BEING GIVEN DEP SVC SLIPPED BY ME THAT DAY. THE SAME GUYS THAT SEND ME ON MY WAY IFR, ON THE SAME FREQ, APPARENTLY (AND WITHIN FAA PROCS) TURNED ME ON COURSE AND SUBSEQUENTLY IGNORED ME. IT IS INTERESTING THAT AN ARRIVING VFR ACFT IS ASSUMED TO BE REQUESTING ADVISORIES, WHILE A DEPARTING ONE IS ASSUMED TO NOT BE MAKING SUCH A REQUEST. MY CONCERN IS THAT IN SPITE OF MY CURRENCY, AND MY ATTN TO FLYING, THAT THIS SUBJECT (THE FACT THAT VFR DEPS MUST ASK FOR ADVISORIES) WASN'T IN MY THOUGHTS AT THE TIME I DEPARTED LUNKIN THAT DAY. I AM DISMAYED, THAT APPARENTLY THE LUNKIN TWR, KNOWING MY COURSE, ALT CLBING TO, AND HAVING DIRECTED ME IN A WAY WHICH PLACED ME FURTHER INTO CLASS C AIRSPACE, APPARENTLY GAVE UP ON ME WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A FURTHER WORD. HAD THE LUNKIN TWR (LET ALONE ADVISING ME TO CONTACT DEP) MERELY SAID, 'LEAVING LUNKIN AIRSPACE.' I WOULD HAVE PICKED UP ON THE FACT THAT I WASN'T BEING FOLLOWED. WHILE I BELIEVE THE AIM SUPPORTS THE APPEARANCE THAT MY FAILURE TO CONTACT CINCINNATI APCH WAS MY SHORTCOMING, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE LUNKIN TWR, FULLY COGNIZANT OF MY INTENTIONS, ALLOWED ME TO BLUNDER INTO CINCINNATI CLASS C AIRSPACE. I KNOW THAT AS THE PIC I AM RESPONSIBLE, YET I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY GIVEN THE NATURE OF MY FLT, LUNKIN TWR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SEPARATION SVCS UNLESS I SPECIFICALLY REQUEST OTHERWISE. IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT AT ALL OTHER TIMES, THAT IS UPON CONTACTING ATC, THIS WOULD BE THE CASE. I AM NOT SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONING LUNKIN TWR, RATHER I QUESTION THE PROC OF NOT OFFERING SEPARATION UNLESS IT IS REQUESTED. THIS SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. UNLESS DEFINITE STEPS ARE TAKEN TO INCLUDE AWARENESS OF THIS FACT IN TRAINING AND RECURRENT TRAINING SYLLABUS, I PREDICT THIS AIRSPACE INCURSION BY OTHER PLTS WILL BE LIKELY.

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.