Narrative:

While a passenger on an IFR flight on a published arwy, the PIC chose to cut the arwy to save time. As a cfii this pilot should have known the procedures as well as the rules to staying on the centerline of a published arwy. I'm not a cfii, but only a CFI. I told him 3 times to get back on course, but he refused, saying 'ATC will not care.' finally ATC asked if in fact we were on course and vectored us back on the arwy. During this whole situation the aircraft was attracting ice along the leading edge, as well as the windshield. Again I told him to ask ATC for vectors to the nearest airport to land and get out of the ice. Again he refused, saying he would not land at an airport west/O fuel 24 hours. As the flight continued we were picking up more ice until the airspeed indicator was covered, indicating no airspeed. At this point the PIC asked for vectors to the nearest airport and ATC did not response very quickly. At the same time we noticed a rotating beacon and told ATC we had an airport and needed to land. They hesitated and we finally told them we were picking up ice and we were landing at burlington. ATC called us at the on-field FSS and told us that our IFR flight plan was in fact cancelled. I guess the big question is how to deal in a situation with a pilot who wants to final all the shortcuts, even when in a dangerous situation. Maybe a recurrent training course, or make these pilots go back through a ground school on regulations and common sense. As I stated above, I was not PIC during any of the above situations, but I also feel it's a shame that pilots who fly by the rules end up with pilots such as this, and feel they need to cover their own licenses and rear end by the possibility of the FAA looking for the wrong pilot. There should be a better form of communication between pilots and the FAA to correct these problems.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA TRACK HEADING DEVIATION AND INFLT ENCOUNTER WITH ICE FORCING A LNDG.

Narrative: WHILE A PAX ON AN IFR FLT ON A PUBLISHED ARWY, THE PIC CHOSE TO CUT THE ARWY TO SAVE TIME. AS A CFII THIS PLT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE PROCS AS WELL AS THE RULES TO STAYING ON THE CENTERLINE OF A PUBLISHED ARWY. I'M NOT A CFII, BUT ONLY A CFI. I TOLD HIM 3 TIMES TO GET BACK ON COURSE, BUT HE REFUSED, SAYING 'ATC WILL NOT CARE.' FINALLY ATC ASKED IF IN FACT WE WERE ON COURSE AND VECTORED US BACK ON THE ARWY. DURING THIS WHOLE SITUATION THE ACFT WAS ATTRACTING ICE ALONG THE LEADING EDGE, AS WELL AS THE WINDSHIELD. AGAIN I TOLD HIM TO ASK ATC FOR VECTORS TO THE NEAREST ARPT TO LAND AND GET OUT OF THE ICE. AGAIN HE REFUSED, SAYING HE WOULD NOT LAND AT AN ARPT W/O FUEL 24 HRS. AS THE FLT CONTINUED WE WERE PICKING UP MORE ICE UNTIL THE AIRSPD INDICATOR WAS COVERED, INDICATING NO AIRSPD. AT THIS POINT THE PIC ASKED FOR VECTORS TO THE NEAREST ARPT AND ATC DID NOT RESPONSE VERY QUICKLY. AT THE SAME TIME WE NOTICED A ROTATING BEACON AND TOLD ATC WE HAD AN ARPT AND NEEDED TO LAND. THEY HESITATED AND WE FINALLY TOLD THEM WE WERE PICKING UP ICE AND WE WERE LNDG AT BURLINGTON. ATC CALLED US AT THE ON-FIELD FSS AND TOLD US THAT OUR IFR FLT PLAN WAS IN FACT CANCELLED. I GUESS THE BIG QUESTION IS HOW TO DEAL IN A SITUATION WITH A PLT WHO WANTS TO FINAL ALL THE SHORTCUTS, EVEN WHEN IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION. MAYBE A RECURRENT TRNING COURSE, OR MAKE THESE PLTS GO BACK THROUGH A GND SCHOOL ON REGS AND COMMON SENSE. AS I STATED ABOVE, I WAS NOT PIC DURING ANY OF THE ABOVE SITUATIONS, BUT I ALSO FEEL IT'S A SHAME THAT PLTS WHO FLY BY THE RULES END UP WITH PLTS SUCH AS THIS, AND FEEL THEY NEED TO COVER THEIR OWN LICENSES AND REAR END BY THE POSSIBILITY OF THE FAA LOOKING FOR THE WRONG PLT. THERE SHOULD BE A BETTER FORM OF COM BTWN PLTS AND THE FAA TO CORRECT THESE PROBS.

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.