Narrative:

We were approaching hgr from the northeast at 6500 ft. Between 10-15 mi from hgr I called the tower for clearance to land at hgr. I was told to expect a straight-north approach for runway 27, and later, to call a 2 mi final. As I got closer to the airport, ATC issued traffic to follow, 2 aircraft in the left hand pattern. I squared my heading so that I was now on a wide right base rather than heading directly for the runway. This way I would not be in conflict with the other traffic and it would be easier for them to see me and for me to see them. I was about 3 mi from the runway at this time. After I had squared my turn, ATC advised that I was 1/8 mi inside the extended 10 mi ring of P-40. I immediately turned directly to the runway. In hindsight it appears that ATC's clearance for a straight-in approach to runway 27 with the extended 10 mi radius of P-40 was inappropriate. Once on the ground in marked the 10 mi radius of P-40 on the map and found that a final longer than 2 mi would be I P-40. When I accepted the straight-in approach it was with the understanding that I would remain clear of P-40. ATC had me on radar and knew where I was and exactly where P-40 extended to. By this time I was busy looking for traffic and slowing to configure the aircraft for landing, so my map was put away. When I had called FSS that morning for a briefing, I was told about the extended P-40. However, no mention was made as to how close it was to an active runway. Had it been mentioned, then I am sure my arrival would have been different.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF B34 ENTERS EXPANDED P-40 WHEN ADJUSTING SPD AND COURSE TO MESH WITH TFC IN PATTERN AT HGR.

Narrative: WE WERE APCHING HGR FROM THE NE AT 6500 FT. BTWN 10-15 MI FROM HGR I CALLED THE TWR FOR CLRNC TO LAND AT HGR. I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT A STRAIGHT-N APCH FOR RWY 27, AND LATER, TO CALL A 2 MI FINAL. AS I GOT CLOSER TO THE ARPT, ATC ISSUED TFC TO FOLLOW, 2 ACFT IN THE L HAND PATTERN. I SQUARED MY HEADING SO THAT I WAS NOW ON A WIDE R BASE RATHER THAN HEADING DIRECTLY FOR THE RWY. THIS WAY I WOULD NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER TFC AND IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR THEM TO SEE ME AND FOR ME TO SEE THEM. I WAS ABOUT 3 MI FROM THE RWY AT THIS TIME. AFTER I HAD SQUARED MY TURN, ATC ADVISED THAT I WAS 1/8 MI INSIDE THE EXTENDED 10 MI RING OF P-40. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED DIRECTLY TO THE RWY. IN HINDSIGHT IT APPEARS THAT ATC'S CLRNC FOR A STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 27 WITH THE EXTENDED 10 MI RADIUS OF P-40 WAS INAPPROPRIATE. ONCE ON THE GND IN MARKED THE 10 MI RADIUS OF P-40 ON THE MAP AND FOUND THAT A FINAL LONGER THAN 2 MI WOULD BE I P-40. WHEN I ACCEPTED THE STRAIGHT-IN APCH IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOULD REMAIN CLR OF P-40. ATC HAD ME ON RADAR AND KNEW WHERE I WAS AND EXACTLY WHERE P-40 EXTENDED TO. BY THIS TIME I WAS BUSY LOOKING FOR TFC AND SLOWING TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT FOR LNDG, SO MY MAP WAS PUT AWAY. WHEN I HAD CALLED FSS THAT MORNING FOR A BRIEFING, I WAS TOLD ABOUT THE EXTENDED P-40. HOWEVER, NO MENTION WAS MADE AS TO HOW CLOSE IT WAS TO AN ACTIVE RWY. HAD IT BEEN MENTIONED, THEN I AM SURE MY ARR WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.

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.