Narrative:

I was the cfii conducting an instrument proficiency check (ipc) with an instrument rated pilot; who was also the owner of the aircraft and was the PIC; per mutual agreement. The PIC; flying the plane; was flying practice instrument approaches; as part of the ipc. The pilot flying was using a view limiting device; I was in the right seat and conducting visual clearance.we departed on an sfra flight plan; and proceeded north to exit at the wooly gate. At that time; sfra services terminated and we were directed to squawk 1200. We proceeded direct the fdk VORTAC; and contacted potomac TRACON for flight following and a practice approach. We advised potomac that we desired practice instrument approaches; the fdk VOR-a; own navigation; and ILS 23; with vectors. Potomac advised us to fly the VOR-a practice approach on our own; and then to call after completion of VOR-a. Fdk tower cleared us for VOR-a with full procedure turn. We flew the approach; executed a missed approach 2 NM before reaching the runway (due to traffic in the pattern); and climbed to 3;000. We turned left heading 080; contacted potomac; and requested ILS 23 fdk practice approach; with vectors. Potomac accepted; adding 'maintain VFR; visual separation services not provided;' which we understood and acknowledged. Potomac commenced vectoring our aircraft to the final approach course; providing three or four vectors to the ILS final. Five or 6 NM northeast of fdk potomac cleared us (to the best of my recollection) to 'turn left heading 240; cleared ILS 23 approach' followed by 'radar contact lost; change to VFR.' the terminology struck me as 'odd;' because I was expecting 'X miles from Y; turn left heading 240; maintain X altitude until established on glideslope; cleared for ILS 23 approach.' the 'change to VFR' also confused me; as I would have expected 'squawk VFR; frequency change approved.' it is possible that we missed a call to 'contact tower;' and we queried the controller approximately one minute later to verify we hadn't missed the call. Potomac replied 'yes; contact the tower.' the potomac operations manager reported post-flight that our call for clarification occurred 1.5 minutes after the controller's directions. We were then 'cleared for the ILS 23 practice approach;' on glideslope (leaving 2;800); and about 5 NM northeast of fdk on the ILS localizer. We immediately contacted fdk tower (134.2); and reported our position on the localizer; and our intention for a low approach. Tower was busy with several aircraft; including one which was directed to make a right 360 for spacing. I realized that the tower controller was busy and missed our call; and began to search for other aircraft which might be approaching from our direction. It was approximately one minute before we could repeat our call to the tower. He acknowledged our call; and asked our position. We reported that we were 'three miles out on the ILS.' he stated that we had violated class D airspace. The PIC replied that 'we were just cleared by potomac for the ILS 23 approach;' and the tower acknowledged and asked us to confirm that 'potomac had just cleared us.' we were now at about 1;800 MSL; on the glideslope; at about 3 NM [from the airport]. At this time; I spotted a piper seneca; proceeding in the same direction landing runway 23; about 300 ft below; 300 ft horizontal separation; behind us but flying at a higher airspeed. Had we continued to follow the glideslope inbound; it is possible that we would have impacted the seneca from above (note: we received no traffic calls or alerts from TRACON or tower; we visually located traffic).we executed a missed approach and climbed straight ahead to 3;000; followed by a left turn direct EMI VORTAC and returned to our departure airport.analysis: I had previously flown practice ILS 23 approaches to fdk; with vectors from potomac; and had no problems. After discussions with potomac post flight; we learned that potomac does notdo 'handoffs' to the contracted tower at fdk. We believed that; after having being vectored to the final approach course of the ILS and 'cleared for the approach;' that potomac would notify the tower of our approach. In retrospect; when we were unable to contact fdk tower due to frequency congestion; a safer course of action would have been to execute a missed approach and climb to 3;000 (above the class D). I did not recommend this approach to the PIC because 1) visibility was unrestricted; 2) I have flown hundreds of practice approaches and never not been able to contact tower in time; and 3) potomac had 'cleared us for the approach;' giving us a sense of security that; in retrospect; was overrated.I recommend that potomac TRACON establish a more defined and safer procedure for conducting instrument approaches to fdk; or that the FAA inform pilots in the dc area to not expect handoffs from approach control to fdk tower and not allow them to develop a false sense of security.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An instructor pilot and an instrumented rated pilot getting an IPC check were surprised when Potomac TRACON failed to hand them off to FDK Tower for a practice ILS approach. An NMAC with an inbound Seneca resulted plus the accusation from the Tower of a Class D violation.

Narrative: I was the CFII conducting an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) with an instrument rated pilot; who was also the owner of the aircraft and was the PIC; per mutual agreement. The PIC; flying the plane; was flying practice instrument approaches; as part of the IPC. The pilot flying was using a view limiting device; I was in the right seat and conducting visual clearance.We departed on an SFRA flight plan; and proceeded north to exit at the WOOLY GATE. At that time; SFRA services terminated and we were directed to Squawk 1200. We proceeded direct the FDK VORTAC; and contacted Potomac TRACON for flight following and a practice approach. We advised Potomac that we desired practice instrument approaches; the FDK VOR-A; own navigation; and ILS 23; with vectors. Potomac advised us to fly the VOR-A practice approach on our own; and then to call after completion of VOR-A. FDK Tower cleared us for VOR-A with full procedure turn. We flew the approach; executed a missed approach 2 NM before reaching the runway (due to traffic in the pattern); and climbed to 3;000. We turned left heading 080; contacted Potomac; and requested ILS 23 FDK practice approach; with vectors. Potomac accepted; adding 'maintain VFR; visual separation services not provided;' which we understood and acknowledged. Potomac commenced vectoring our aircraft to the final approach course; providing three or four vectors to the ILS final. Five or 6 NM northeast of FDK Potomac cleared us (to the best of my recollection) to 'Turn left heading 240; cleared ILS 23 approach' followed by 'Radar contact lost; change to VFR.' The terminology struck me as 'odd;' because I was expecting 'X miles from Y; turn left heading 240; maintain X altitude until established on glideslope; cleared for ILS 23 approach.' The 'Change to VFR' also confused me; as I would have expected 'Squawk VFR; frequency change approved.' It is possible that we missed a call to 'contact Tower;' and we queried the Controller approximately one minute later to verify we hadn't missed the call. Potomac replied 'yes; contact the Tower.' The Potomac Operations Manager reported post-flight that our call for clarification occurred 1.5 minutes after the Controller's directions. We were then 'cleared for the ILS 23 practice approach;' on glideslope (leaving 2;800); and about 5 NM northeast of FDK on the ILS localizer. We immediately contacted FDK Tower (134.2); and reported our position on the localizer; and our intention for a low approach. Tower was busy with several aircraft; including one which was directed to make a right 360 for spacing. I realized that the Tower Controller was busy and missed our call; and began to search for other aircraft which might be approaching from our direction. It was approximately one minute before we could repeat our call to the Tower. He acknowledged our call; and asked our position. We reported that we were 'three miles out on the ILS.' He stated that we had violated Class D airspace. The PIC replied that 'we were just cleared by Potomac for the ILS 23 approach;' and the Tower acknowledged and asked us to confirm that 'Potomac had just cleared us.' We were now at about 1;800 MSL; on the glideslope; at about 3 NM [from the airport]. At this time; I spotted a Piper Seneca; proceeding in the same direction landing Runway 23; about 300 FT below; 300 FT horizontal separation; behind us but flying at a higher airspeed. Had we continued to follow the glideslope inbound; it is possible that we would have impacted the Seneca from above (Note: we received no traffic calls or alerts from TRACON or Tower; we visually located traffic).We executed a missed approach and climbed straight ahead to 3;000; followed by a left turn direct EMI VORTAC and returned to our departure airport.Analysis: I had previously flown practice ILS 23 approaches to FDK; with vectors from Potomac; and had no problems. After discussions with Potomac post flight; we learned that Potomac does notdo 'handoffs' to the contracted Tower at FDK. We believed that; after having being vectored to the final approach course of the ILS and 'cleared for the approach;' that Potomac would notify the Tower of our approach. In retrospect; when we were unable to contact FDK Tower due to frequency congestion; a safer course of action would have been to execute a missed approach and climb to 3;000 (above the Class D). I did not recommend this approach to the PIC because 1) visibility was unrestricted; 2) I have flown hundreds of practice approaches and never NOT been able to contact Tower in time; and 3) Potomac had 'cleared us for the approach;' giving us a sense of security that; in retrospect; was overrated.I recommend that Potomac TRACON establish a more defined and safer procedure for conducting instrument approaches to FDK; or that the FAA inform pilots in the DC area to not expect handoffs from Approach Control to FDK Tower and not allow them to develop a false sense of security.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.