Narrative:

This was a training flight with a flight instructor for the purposes of maintaining instrument currency. This was the first flight with this particular flight instructor, who had just moved to the area and started instructing there that week. While returning to the departure airport (class D airspace), instructor suggested a practice simulated no-gyro ASR approach. Instructor covered primary gyro instruments, disabled electronic on-board navigation aids, and assumed responsibility for ATC communications. Instructor had already assumed traffic scan and avoidance responsibilities, since I was and continued to be under the hood for most of the flight. Approximately 6 NM north of the airport and 3000 ft AGL, instructor contacted the tower, informed them of simulated ASR approach to runway 29, and was told to report on 5 mi final to runway 29. It's possible that the local controller understood or misunderstood the request as a simulated VOR approach to runway 29, given the entry/reporting point given. Instructor proceeded to assign heading and altitudes, which I followed. Though I didn't make any concerted efforts to interpretation the simulated vectors and altitude assignments, they appeared to be for a right downwind, base, final entry to runway 29. While on a heading consistent with a base leg, instructor assigned 500 ft MSL (approximately 500 ft AGL). I questioned instructor as to the low altitude, but was not assertive and accepted it when he insisted on the altitude. Shortly after a heading assignment of 290 (runway heading), instructor assigned 400 ft MSL. That seemed really low to me given the 5 mi final report requested by the local controller. I did not question the instructor, and he proceeded to call tower and reported established on a 5 mi final for runway 29. Tower then instructed us to follow a gulfstream jet on a 2 mi final. Instructor reported to the tower that the jet was not in sight. At this time I decided to lift the hood and look for the airport, runway and traffic. I immediately saw that we were not on 5 mi final but in fact on a 1 mi final to runway 29. As I forcefully told that to instructor, the local controller told us to start an immediate right turn, which I did. The gulfstream pilot then reported that he had traffic ahead but 'out of the way now,' and we circled around to rejoin the final and landed without incident. I could not believe a flight instructor would make such mistakes. A 1 mi final cannot possibly be mistaken to be a 5 mi final -- or so I thought. It also became apparent to me, once I raised the hood and determined our true position, that we most likely flew unnecessarily low over homes, buildings and a highway. We may or may not have flown less than 500 ft above them, but we certainly operated against reasonable safety and noise abatement procedures. What upset me the most, is that I insist on a certified instructor (instead of just a private safety pilot) for all simulated IFR training for safety and quality reasons. My lessons from this are: 1) don't assume that flight instructors know best or have always good judgement. 2) maintain situational awareness, even when given vectors in VFR conditions, be it ATC or simulated vectors. 3) question any vector and/or altitude assignment that does not seem appropriate, again be they ATC or simulated. 4) be assertive and insist on an explanation once I decide a clearance must be questioned. 5) when there is doubt about the safe outcome of a situation, start immediately the most conservative corrective action, and inform instructors, ATC, of the action and reason for the action.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CFI FOULED UP THE TFC PATTERN.

Narrative: THIS WAS A TRAINING FLT WITH A FLT INSTRUCTOR FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING INST CURRENCY. THIS WAS THE FIRST FLT WITH THIS PARTICULAR FLT INSTRUCTOR, WHO HAD JUST MOVED TO THE AREA AND STARTED INSTRUCTING THERE THAT WK. WHILE RETURNING TO THE DEP ARPT (CLASS D AIRSPACE), INSTRUCTOR SUGGESTED A PRACTICE SIMULATED NO-GYRO ASR APCH. INSTRUCTOR COVERED PRIMARY GYRO INSTS, DISABLED ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD NAV AIDS, AND ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ATC COMS. INSTRUCTOR HAD ALREADY ASSUMED TFC SCAN AND AVOIDANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, SINCE I WAS AND CONTINUED TO BE UNDER THE HOOD FOR MOST OF THE FLT. APPROX 6 NM N OF THE ARPT AND 3000 FT AGL, INSTRUCTOR CONTACTED THE TWR, INFORMED THEM OF SIMULATED ASR APCH TO RWY 29, AND WAS TOLD TO RPT ON 5 MI FINAL TO RWY 29. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE LCL CTLR UNDERSTOOD OR MISUNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST AS A SIMULATED VOR APCH TO RWY 29, GIVEN THE ENTRY/RPTING POINT GIVEN. INSTRUCTOR PROCEEDED TO ASSIGN HDG AND ALTS, WHICH I FOLLOWED. THOUGH I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CONCERTED EFFORTS TO INTERP THE SIMULATED VECTORS AND ALT ASSIGNMENTS, THEY APPEARED TO BE FOR A R DOWNWIND, BASE, FINAL ENTRY TO RWY 29. WHILE ON A HDG CONSISTENT WITH A BASE LEG, INSTRUCTOR ASSIGNED 500 FT MSL (APPROX 500 FT AGL). I QUESTIONED INSTRUCTOR AS TO THE LOW ALT, BUT WAS NOT ASSERTIVE AND ACCEPTED IT WHEN HE INSISTED ON THE ALT. SHORTLY AFTER A HDG ASSIGNMENT OF 290 (RWY HDG), INSTRUCTOR ASSIGNED 400 FT MSL. THAT SEEMED REALLY LOW TO ME GIVEN THE 5 MI FINAL RPT REQUESTED BY THE LCL CTLR. I DID NOT QUESTION THE INSTRUCTOR, AND HE PROCEEDED TO CALL TWR AND RPTED ESTABLISHED ON A 5 MI FINAL FOR RWY 29. TWR THEN INSTRUCTED US TO FOLLOW A GULFSTREAM JET ON A 2 MI FINAL. INSTRUCTOR RPTED TO THE TWR THAT THE JET WAS NOT IN SIGHT. AT THIS TIME I DECIDED TO LIFT THE HOOD AND LOOK FOR THE ARPT, RWY AND TFC. I IMMEDIATELY SAW THAT WE WERE NOT ON 5 MI FINAL BUT IN FACT ON A 1 MI FINAL TO RWY 29. AS I FORCEFULLY TOLD THAT TO INSTRUCTOR, THE LCL CTLR TOLD US TO START AN IMMEDIATE R TURN, WHICH I DID. THE GULFSTREAM PLT THEN RPTED THAT HE HAD TFC AHEAD BUT 'OUT OF THE WAY NOW,' AND WE CIRCLED AROUND TO REJOIN THE FINAL AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I COULD NOT BELIEVE A FLT INSTRUCTOR WOULD MAKE SUCH MISTAKES. A 1 MI FINAL CANNOT POSSIBLY BE MISTAKEN TO BE A 5 MI FINAL -- OR SO I THOUGHT. IT ALSO BECAME APPARENT TO ME, ONCE I RAISED THE HOOD AND DETERMINED OUR TRUE POS, THAT WE MOST LIKELY FLEW UNNECESSARILY LOW OVER HOMES, BUILDINGS AND A HWY. WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE FLOWN LESS THAN 500 FT ABOVE THEM, BUT WE CERTAINLY OPERATED AGAINST REASONABLE SAFETY AND NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS. WHAT UPSET ME THE MOST, IS THAT I INSIST ON A CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR (INSTEAD OF JUST A PVT SAFETY PLT) FOR ALL SIMULATED IFR TRAINING FOR SAFETY AND QUALITY REASONS. MY LESSONS FROM THIS ARE: 1) DON'T ASSUME THAT FLT INSTRUCTORS KNOW BEST OR HAVE ALWAYS GOOD JUDGEMENT. 2) MAINTAIN SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, EVEN WHEN GIVEN VECTORS IN VFR CONDITIONS, BE IT ATC OR SIMULATED VECTORS. 3) QUESTION ANY VECTOR AND/OR ALT ASSIGNMENT THAT DOES NOT SEEM APPROPRIATE, AGAIN BE THEY ATC OR SIMULATED. 4) BE ASSERTIVE AND INSIST ON AN EXPLANATION ONCE I DECIDE A CLRNC MUST BE QUESTIONED. 5) WHEN THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFE OUTCOME OF A SIT, START IMMEDIATELY THE MOST CONSERVATIVE CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND INFORM INSTRUCTORS, ATC, OF THE ACTION AND REASON FOR THE ACTION.

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.