Pop-up traffic requesting an IFR clearance creates some confusion with issuing ARTCC radar controller when an initial position reporting procedure is omitted.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	179935
Time
Date	199105
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : bzn
State Reference	MT
Altitude	msl bound lower : 11000 msl bound upper : 11000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute airway : zlc enroute airway : v86
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 40 flight time total : 3100 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	179930
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	flight crew : became reoriented other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

This situation has to do with apparent confusion between pilot and controller. An IFR flight plan was activated with ZLC approximately 10 NM southeast of bzn in VFR conditions. After giving the clearance ('cleared as filed'), altitude and transponder code, the statement 'proceed on course' was made. I took this to mean to continue southeast down the arwy toward the destination, rather than to go to bzn and then proceed to destination. The flight plan was filed bzn-V86-bil. After entering IMC on the arwy, the center seemed to be confused about my intentions. The problem was compounded by no radar contact (apparently). After numerous xmissions to give approximately positions, center asked if I was starting the flight plan at this en route position. This question made me think that he had been expecting me to go to bzn to the northwest, then turn around and proceed southeast to the destination. I think that the instruction to 'proceed on course' in this case should have been better defined by the controller or me. This kind of misunderstanding could affect safe spacing of aircraft, although in this case I don't believe there was any other aircraft of concern.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POP-UP TRAFFIC REQUESTING AN IFR CLRNC CREATES SOME CONFUSION WITH ISSUING ARTCC RADAR CTLR WHEN AN INITIAL POSITION REPORTING PROC IS OMITTED.

Narrative: THIS SITUATION HAS TO DO WITH APPARENT CONFUSION BTWN PLT AND CTLR. AN IFR FLT PLAN WAS ACTIVATED WITH ZLC APPROX 10 NM SE OF BZN IN VFR CONDITIONS. AFTER GIVING THE CLRNC ('CLRED AS FILED'), ALT AND XPONDER CODE, THE STATEMENT 'PROCEED ON COURSE' WAS MADE. I TOOK THIS TO MEAN TO CONTINUE SE DOWN THE ARWY TOWARD THE DEST, RATHER THAN TO GO TO BZN AND THEN PROCEED TO DEST. THE FLT PLAN WAS FILED BZN-V86-BIL. AFTER ENTERING IMC ON THE ARWY, THE CENTER SEEMED TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT MY INTENTIONS. THE PROB WAS COMPOUNDED BY NO RADAR CONTACT (APPARENTLY). AFTER NUMEROUS XMISSIONS TO GIVE APPROX POSITIONS, CENTER ASKED IF I WAS STARTING THE FLT PLAN AT THIS ENRTE POS. THIS QUESTION MADE ME THINK THAT HE HAD BEEN EXPECTING ME TO GO TO BZN TO THE NW, THEN TURN AROUND AND PROCEED SE TO THE DEST. I THINK THAT THE INSTRUCTION TO 'PROCEED ON COURSE' IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER DEFINED BY THE CTLR OR ME. THIS KIND OF MISUNDERSTANDING COULD AFFECT SAFE SPACING OF ACFT, ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY OTHER ACFT OF CONCERN.

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.