37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1361984 |
Time | |
Date | 201606 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | FAI.Airport |
State Reference | AK |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Small Transport Low Wing 2 Recip Eng |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
Flight Phase | Descent |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Pilot Flying Single Pilot |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Multiengine |
Events | |
Anomaly | Deviation - Altitude Overshoot Deviation - Procedural Clearance Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
IFR flight plan to fai. Level at 7000; IMC; autopilot engaged; cleared down to 6000 and cleared direct hosan (unfamiliar fix). Selected vertical speed/down on autopilot; began stable descent. Broke out into excellent VMC conditions (large hole; visibility estimated >20 nm; ground clearly visible below; familiar terrain). Relaxed when VMC conditions appeared; and started trying to find hosan in GPS and on approach charts (expected to find it easily). Unable to find hosan fix in GPS; found it on approach chart; still unable to find in GPS. Glancing out window showed no hazard from terrain. Head-down; programming GPS; looked up and noticed low altitude. Immediately disengaged autopilot; and climbed back to altitude in VMC. Lulled into sense of complacency by good VMC conditions and clear view of ground below; as well as familiar local terrain. Got lost in GPS programming. Did not ask for clearance to a familiar fix; which would be easier to find. Perhaps we should develop a rule of thumb (to help pilots in dealing with automated systems); and train them to recognize when to use this rule of thumb. Perhaps something like this: 'when programming an automated system; try it one time. If that attempt is unsuccessful; then try one more time. If the second attempt at programming fails; then drop back to the next lower level of automation.' a rule of thumb like this could help reduce head-down time in dealing with automated aircraft/systems. Scenario-based training is probably a good way to introduce this rule of thumb. If ATC only uses familiar; major fixes (initial approach fix; final approach fix; etc) in routing instructions; then pilots will spend less time searching for fixes. This would also reduce head-down time in the cockpit.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air taxi pilot descending into Fairbanks reported becoming distracted while attempting to find and enter the fix he was cleared direct to and descended below his assigned altitude.
Narrative: IFR flight plan to FAI. Level at 7000; IMC; Autopilot engaged; Cleared down to 6000 and cleared direct HOSAN (unfamiliar fix). Selected Vertical Speed/Down on autopilot; began stable descent. Broke out into excellent VMC conditions (large hole; visibility estimated >20 nm; ground clearly visible below; familiar terrain). Relaxed when VMC conditions appeared; and started trying to find HOSAN in GPS and on approach charts (expected to find it easily). Unable to find HOSAN fix in GPS; found it on approach chart; still unable to find in GPS. Glancing out window showed no hazard from terrain. Head-down; programming GPS; looked up and noticed low altitude. Immediately disengaged autopilot; and climbed back to altitude in VMC. Lulled into sense of complacency by good VMC conditions and clear view of ground below; as well as familiar local terrain. Got lost in GPS programming. Did not ask for clearance to a familiar fix; which would be easier to find. Perhaps we should develop a rule of thumb (to help pilots in dealing with automated systems); and train them to recognize when to use this rule of thumb. Perhaps something like this: 'When programming an automated system; try it one time. If that attempt is unsuccessful; then try one more time. If the second attempt at programming fails; then drop back to the next lower level of automation.' A rule of thumb like this could help reduce head-down time in dealing with automated aircraft/systems. Scenario-based training is probably a good way to introduce this rule of thumb. If ATC only uses familiar; major fixes (initial approach fix; final approach fix; etc) in routing instructions; then pilots will spend less time searching for fixes. This would also reduce head-down time in the cockpit.
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.