Narrative:

On an early evening flight I had an instructional flight scheduled with a student to conduct an instrument proficiency check (ipc). I have known the other pilot and have flown in IMC conditions with him weeks before this flight. My student wanted to conduct this flight and the ipc in order to gain experience and proficiency. We both were instrument current at the time although my student's currency had been spread out over a period of time. I myself have had a lot of recent actual and simulate IMC in the months and week leading up to this flight. We both have flown the plane and are very familiar with it. The overall conditions in the area were for IFR conditions ceilings in the upper thousand foot area; with some areas having few and scattered clouds in the high hundreds. Overall it was what I would consider high IFR. We filed three flight plans. Our intention was to perform holds and an approach [first airport] followed by a circle to land at [second airport] and then end the night with a landing back at [home airport]. Departing [home airport] was uneventful. Enroute to [first airport] we noticed the auto pilot had trouble leveling off at selected altitudes. It had the tendency to climb but once leveled off and reprogrammed the auto pilot would hold altitude just fine. We both verbally noted that we would need to keep an eye on it. We entered a hold and during the outbound turn my student noticed that the artificial horizon would indicate the correct directions and trends of attitude but seemed to lag. We kept an eye on it. During the procedure turn on the approach my student noted that it was confusing him so we elected to cover the attitude indicator with a post it note to prevent him from using it. Being that we needed to do a partial panel approach for the ipc I didn't see an issue with this. My student conducted the full procedure perfect. Once in VMC conditions I removed the post it note. On our missed approach in VMC conditions the attitude indicator appeared to be working fine. So I elected to proceed on. We were vectored to the ILS7L at [second airport] and circled to land 25R with no issues. We conducted a full stop where we copied our new clearance back to [home airport]. This gave us some time to setup and configure our aircraft for the last leg. We had no issues departing [second airport] and everything seemed normal. The autopilot and artificial horizon were functioning fine. ATC gave us a right 270 degree turn to a heading of 090 which was the start of our vector for the ILS 23 at [home airport]. My student noted that the attitude indicator was acting up again so we elected to cover it back up with the post it note. This is when our work load started to go up. The flight from [second airport] to [home airport] is short. The two airports are only around 10 miles apart the localizer course is even closer. The radios started getting busy and my student was busy setting up the GPS so I elected to take the radios. The approach course goes out over [large body of water] and as a common practice I usually ask ATC for a shorter turn to final so I minimize my time in a single engine aircraft over [the lake]. Before I could make my request the radios were busy and ATC asked me to switch frequencies and tell another aircraft to contact ATC on [another frequency]. At the time ATC made this request the radio was stepped on so I didn't fully understand what the request was. The whole time my student was flying and we were on base leg for the approach. I asked my student if he heard or understood the request. Which he did not. While this was happening my student noticed the autopilot was not holding heading. He elected to hand fly which I confirmed. I finally herd ATC's request and complied and made the call. All while we flew past the localizer course for the ILS. ATC gave us a turn back to the localizer. This is when I diverted my attention to the radios; GPS and avionics to see how we flew past the localizer. At this moment I heard increased air noise indicating that airspeed was increasing. My student called for me to take the controls and I noted a descending right spiral. I recovered promptly. From what I recall seeing was around a 2;000 fpm descent rate and I recovered at about 2;000 feet. Before the turn back to intercept we were at 3;000 feet. I proceeded to climb back to the 2;300 feet altitude on the approach and flew the ILS and landed. Multiple factors lead up the event. First off after encountering problems with the auto pilot and attitude indicator we should have elected to discontinue the preplanned flight. Perceived as minor problems we elected to continue and after not having issues after the first approach I was under the minds set that it really wasn't an issue. The uneventful approach to [the second airport] reaffirmed this. The big factors leading up to the loss of control were the short distances between airports and ATC's request on the radio. The short duration of the flight increased our work load. Then on top of it ATC was having me conduct and nonstandard procedure at a critical phase of flight for me which was setting up for the approach. The radio congestion caused me to miss radio calls. And my mistake was asking my student if he understood the instructions. I took his attention away from flying. After the flight I asked my student and we both confirmed that neither one of us had heard at instruct us to intercept the localizer. The controller was either stepped on again or forgot. This passing of the localizer is what caused us to have the right turn back. This could have been avoided. First off we should have discontinued the flight after [the first landing]. I hindsight I now believe the attitude indicator was malfunctioning as a result of being in a prolonged turn. I.e. The turn in the hold and the right 270 degree turn. That's when we noticed the lag in the instrument and that is why the instrument seemed to work fine in the missed approach because at that time we were only doing small turns. In terms of the flight [to the home airport]. Once asked to do a nonstandard radio call at a critical time I should have said unable. This would have kept all my attention inside flying the airplane. Also task management was an issue. I was working the radios so I should have left my student to flying the plane instead of asking him if he heard or understood ATC's request. I helped cause a distraction for my student who should have solely been flying and programming the avionics. It all comes back to the old phrase aviation; navigate; and communicate. One simple distraction of a nonstandard radio call compiled with faulty instruments at night in IMC at a high work load situation led to a loss of situational awareness.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A flight instructor and instrument student pilot reported a momentary loss of control in a C182 during instruction in IMC conditions. Several contributing factors were described.

Narrative: On an early evening flight I had an instructional flight scheduled with a student to conduct an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC). I have known the other pilot and have flown in IMC conditions with him weeks before this flight. My student wanted to conduct this flight and the IPC in order to gain experience and proficiency. We both were instrument current at the time although my student's currency had been spread out over a period of time. I myself have had a lot of recent actual and simulate IMC in the months and week leading up to this flight. We both have flown the plane and are very familiar with it. The overall conditions in the area were for IFR conditions ceilings in the upper thousand foot area; with some areas having few and scattered clouds in the high hundreds. Overall it was what I would consider high IFR. We filed three flight plans. Our intention was to perform holds and an approach [first airport] followed by a circle to land at [second airport] and then end the night with a landing back at [home airport]. Departing [home airport] was uneventful. Enroute to [first airport] we noticed the auto pilot had trouble leveling off at selected altitudes. It had the tendency to climb but once leveled off and reprogrammed the auto pilot would hold altitude just fine. We both verbally noted that we would need to keep an eye on it. We entered a hold and during the outbound turn my student noticed that the artificial horizon would indicate the correct directions and trends of attitude but seemed to lag. We kept an eye on it. During the procedure turn on the approach my student noted that it was confusing him so we elected to cover the attitude indicator with a post it note to prevent him from using it. Being that we needed to do a partial panel approach for the IPC I didn't see an issue with this. My student conducted the full procedure perfect. Once in VMC conditions I removed the post it note. On our missed approach in VMC conditions the Attitude indicator appeared to be working fine. So I elected to proceed on. We were vectored to the ILS7L at [second airport] and circled to land 25R with no issues. We conducted a full stop where we copied our new clearance back to [home airport]. This gave us some time to setup and configure our aircraft for the last leg. We had no issues departing [second airport] and everything seemed normal. The autopilot and artificial horizon were functioning fine. ATC gave us a right 270 degree turn to a heading of 090 which was the start of our vector for the ILS 23 at [home airport]. My student noted that the attitude indicator was acting up again so we elected to cover it back up with the post it note. This is when our work load started to go up. The flight from [second airport] to [home airport] is short. The two airports are only around 10 miles apart the localizer course is even closer. The radios started getting busy and my student was busy setting up the GPS so I elected to take the radios. The approach course goes out over [large body of water] and as a common practice I usually ask ATC for a shorter turn to final so I minimize my time in a single engine aircraft over [the lake]. Before I could make my request the radios were busy and ATC asked me to switch frequencies and tell another aircraft to contact ATC on [another frequency]. At the time ATC made this request the radio was stepped on so I didn't fully understand what the request was. The whole time my student was flying and we were on base leg for the approach. I asked my student if he heard or understood the request. Which he did not. While this was happening my student noticed the autopilot was not holding heading. He elected to hand fly which I confirmed. I finally herd ATC's request and complied and made the call. All while we flew past the localizer course for the ILS. ATC gave us a turn back to the localizer. This is when I diverted my attention to the radios; GPS and avionics to see how we flew past the localizer. At this moment I heard increased air noise indicating that airspeed was increasing. My student called for me to take the controls and I noted a descending right spiral. I recovered promptly. From what I recall seeing was around a 2;000 fpm descent rate and I recovered at about 2;000 feet. Before the turn back to intercept we were at 3;000 feet. I proceeded to climb back to the 2;300 feet altitude on the approach and flew the ILS and landed. Multiple factors lead up the event. First off after encountering problems with the auto pilot and attitude indicator we should have elected to discontinue the preplanned flight. Perceived as minor problems we elected to continue and after not having issues after the first approach I was under the minds set that it really wasn't an issue. The uneventful approach to [the second airport] reaffirmed this. The big factors leading up to the loss of control were the short distances between airports and ATC's request on the radio. The short duration of the flight increased our work load. Then on top of it ATC was having me conduct and nonstandard procedure at a critical phase of flight for me which was setting up for the approach. The radio congestion caused me to miss radio calls. And my mistake was asking my student if he understood the instructions. I took his attention away from flying. After the flight I asked my student and we both confirmed that neither one of us had heard at instruct us to intercept the localizer. The controller was either stepped on again or forgot. This passing of the localizer is what caused us to have the right turn back. This could have been avoided. First off we should have discontinued the flight after [the first landing]. I hindsight I now believe the attitude indicator was malfunctioning as a result of being in a prolonged turn. i.e. the turn in the hold and the right 270 degree turn. That's when we noticed the lag in the instrument and that is why the instrument seemed to work fine in the missed approach because at that time we were only doing small turns. In terms of the flight [to the home airport]. Once asked to do a nonstandard radio call at a critical time I should have said unable. This would have kept all my attention inside flying the airplane. Also task management was an issue. I was working the radios so I should have left my student to flying the plane instead of asking him if he heard or understood ATC's request. I helped cause a distraction for my student who should have solely been flying and programming the avionics. It all comes back to the old phrase aviation; navigate; and communicate. One simple distraction of a nonstandard radio call compiled with faulty instruments at night in IMC at a high work load situation led to a loss of situational awareness.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.