Narrative:

I was on a local IFR training flight practicing INS approachs into dab. Upon completing a low approach into dab, our missed approach instructions were, 'climb to 2000' and turned to heading of 090 degrees.' approach control was reached crossing the coast. Only reply was, 'radar contact.' we proceeded on a heading of 090 degrees until approximately 3 mi offshore. Unable to contact approach, I told the student to turn to a heading of 160 degrees to parallel the coast because we were beyond gliding distance from shore. I called approach as soon as possible, told them we turned to parallel coast because we were too far offshore, but there was no reply. Next call from approach was asking us what our heading was. I replied, '160, we turned to parallel the coast, too far offshore.' the controller then stated, 'you cannot deviate from assigned heading west/O prior permission,' and told us to turn left to heading of 110 degrees. Since a 110 heading would take us farther offshore, I replied, 'unable, too far offshore, we cannot turn left.' controller then asked if we could cancel IFR. I replied, 'we can if we have to,' and then was asked what our intentions were. I then told controller we would return back to airport for visibility approach. We were then given radar vectors back to daytona. Apparently after turning we created a traffic conflict with another IFR aircraft, but if we were to continue eastbound, we would be beyond gliding distance from the coast, thereby creating hazardous situation for us and also breaking the FARS. In my judgement, it was better to turn and stay within gliding distance, especially when the ceiling and visibility were practically unrestricted. If we had been in actual IFR, I probably would not have turned. The major problem in this situation was frequency congestion due to high traffic vol. It seemed the controller forgot all about us. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter is an instrument for major flight training and aviation educational facility. He stated that he had not checked on this incident with ATC, but they had been in contact with the school before he completed the flight, and as a result of the discussions, they agreed that they would take no action re: the incident. Reporter did not see the other aircraft involved, knows nothing about the closure geometry, and whether or not sep was lost.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ON INS TRAINING FLT DOING MISSED APCH IS VECTORED OUT TO SEA BEYOND SAFE GLIDE DISTANCE AND TURNS UNDER COMMAND AUTHORITY, THEREBY CAUSING NON CRITICAL CONFLICT.

Narrative: I WAS ON A LCL IFR TRNING FLT PRACTICING INS APCHS INTO DAB. UPON COMPLETING A LOW APCH INTO DAB, OUR MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS WERE, 'CLB TO 2000' AND TURNED TO HDG OF 090 DEGS.' APCH CTL WAS REACHED XING THE COAST. ONLY REPLY WAS, 'RADAR CONTACT.' WE PROCEEDED ON A HDG OF 090 DEGS UNTIL APPROX 3 MI OFFSHORE. UNABLE TO CONTACT APCH, I TOLD THE STUDENT TO TURN TO A HDG OF 160 DEGS TO PARALLEL THE COAST BECAUSE WE WERE BEYOND GLIDING DISTANCE FROM SHORE. I CALLED APCH ASAP, TOLD THEM WE TURNED TO PARALLEL COAST BECAUSE WE WERE TOO FAR OFFSHORE, BUT THERE WAS NO REPLY. NEXT CALL FROM APCH WAS ASKING US WHAT OUR HDG WAS. I REPLIED, '160, WE TURNED TO PARALLEL THE COAST, TOO FAR OFFSHORE.' THE CTLR THEN STATED, 'YOU CANNOT DEVIATE FROM ASSIGNED HDG W/O PRIOR PERMISSION,' AND TOLD US TO TURN LEFT TO HDG OF 110 DEGS. SINCE A 110 HDG WOULD TAKE US FARTHER OFFSHORE, I REPLIED, 'UNABLE, TOO FAR OFFSHORE, WE CANNOT TURN LEFT.' CTLR THEN ASKED IF WE COULD CANCEL IFR. I REPLIED, 'WE CAN IF WE HAVE TO,' AND THEN WAS ASKED WHAT OUR INTENTIONS WERE. I THEN TOLD CTLR WE WOULD RETURN BACK TO ARPT FOR VIS APCH. WE WERE THEN GIVEN RADAR VECTORS BACK TO DAYTONA. APPARENTLY AFTER TURNING WE CREATED A TFC CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER IFR ACFT, BUT IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE EBND, WE WOULD BE BEYOND GLIDING DISTANCE FROM THE COAST, THEREBY CREATING HAZARDOUS SITUATION FOR US AND ALSO BREAKING THE FARS. IN MY JUDGEMENT, IT WAS BETTER TO TURN AND STAY WITHIN GLIDING DISTANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CEILING AND VISIBILITY WERE PRACTICALLY UNRESTRICTED. IF WE HAD BEEN IN ACTUAL IFR, I PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE TURNED. THE MAJOR PROB IN THIS SITUATION WAS FREQ CONGESTION DUE TO HIGH TFC VOL. IT SEEMED THE CTLR FORGOT ALL ABOUT US. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR IS AN INSTR FOR MAJOR FLT TRNING AND AVIATION EDUCATIONAL FAC. HE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT CHKED ON THIS INCIDENT WITH ATC, BUT THEY HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE SCHOOL BEFORE HE COMPLETED THE FLT, AND AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSIONS, THEY AGREED THAT THEY WOULD TAKE NO ACTION RE: THE INCIDENT. RPTR DID NOT SEE THE OTHER ACFT INVOLVED, KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE CLOSURE GEOMETRY, AND WHETHER OR NOT SEP WAS LOST.

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.