Narrative:

On apr/xx/95, I was assigned to proving flts in a cessna ce-650 jet being added to an air carrier certificate. An IFR flight plan was filed from new york to melbourne, fl, by way of freeport, bahamas. In the remarks section was a notation of a low approach only with a missed approach at freeport. En route to freeport, ATC questioned the crew intentions at freeport. Approximately 200 mi from freeport the flight crew advised ATC of their intentions to make a low approach and missed approach at freeport and then to proceed to melbourne, fl. Before beginning a VOR approach the flight crew received an IFR clearance for both the low IFR approach and missed approach instructions at freeport. The missed approach instructions included routing to melbourne an initial altitude restr of 6000 ft until established on the airway and then to maintain FL230, flight level 23000 ft. The crew was also requested to report the following compulsory positions, rapps intersection inbound to freeport, freeport VOR outbound, procedure turn inbound, and missed approach. After the low approach, the aircraft proceeded to melbourne. While being vectored for an NDB approach and while on downwind, the crew was told by ATC, 'united states customs requires nxxxxx to be diverted to ft pierce so as to clear customs and that landing clearance to melbourne is denied.' ATC was advised by the crew that the airplane had not landed in a foreign country and that 4 FAA inspectors were onboard the aircraft. Again, ATC advised the crew of the above remarks. The flight crew then queried ATC on whether customs would be at the airport. The local time was after 00 hours. ATC stated they were checking this out and if customs were not at ft pierce then the aircraft would be diverted to either orlando or miami. A short time later ATC advised the crew that customs was waiting, standing by at the ft pierce airport. Due to the late arrival, ft pierce ATCT was closed and no WX reporting for the airport was available. In the traffic pattern were several small single engine aircraft which appeared to be on training flight. Upon arrival at the ft pierce customs ramp, the ramp and customs building was deserted. Approximately 20 mins later customs did arrive. Fuel remaining in the aircraft was less than 1500 pounds, not enough fuel to legally or safely depart ft pierce and go to another airport. The customs officer at ft pierce, inspector, informed us that he had 1 hour to respond to an after hours return to work call and as such we could have been sitting on the ramp for another 45 mins without anyone observing our activities. In a telephone conversation with the facility responsible for diverting the flight, informed us that we were on a VFR flight plan as per ZMA and flying in international airspace with an aircraft registration dated today's date. Therefore we could not have a valid FAA aircraft registration onboard the airplane and as such we fit a profile where customs intervention is required. When these facts were disputed I was then told that even on an IFR flight plan over flying a foreign country that flying through the ADIZ, air defense identify zone, that we were required to clear customs. A copy of the aircraft pink slip and facsimile registration was presented to united states customs. After obtaining all the facts, inspector basically stated there was no reason for us to clear customs, and that we could continue on our flight. Inspector further stated that almost on a daily basis that an aircraft is diverted within florida from airport of intended landing to another airport for customs requirements. Most of the diversions are for small single engine airplanes. Now a refueler had to come to the airport and the owners of the aircraft had to pay a service charge for after hours refueling. After being refueled, the flight proceeded to melbourne and landed after midnight. Again arrival was into an airport without an operating control tower. By now the flight crew appeared to be very tired and safety was not as high as if the flight had not been diverted. Conclusions and observations: there appears to be no legal requirement for nxxxx to be diverted and clear customs for the above described flight. As reported by customs inspector the problem appears to be a systemic problem which happens on at least a weekly basis if not a daily a basis. The mixing of jet traffic with single engine training airplanes at an uncontrolled airport at night could jeopardize safety. A tired flight crew that is diverted and delayed is again a deterrent to safety. A timid and frightened private pilot, who has heard horror stories about united states customs and ATC, that is ordered by ATC to divert to another airport because of united states customs requirements and permission to land at an airport is denied, could be an accident looking for a place to happen either because of fuel starvation or loss of directional control because of continued flight by a VFR pilot into marginal or instrument meteorological conditions. The cost of unnecessary diversions is substantial. Being diverted to an airport without any law or customs officers present for the landing appears to be an ineffective way to deal with the criminal element. When FAA aircraft registration are issued by facsimile, then some notation should be made in the computer system so that law enforcement can see that a valid registration is or could be in the aircraft. It is possible for some over zealous air traffic controllers to be playing a potentially deadly game of cops and robbers with the lives of innocent persons? What kind of incentives are there for ATC controllers to misrepresent aircraft flight information? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he realizes that united states customs and ATC were just doing their job. However, he was concerned that some private pilots in particular would be intimated into operating in IFR or while low on fuel by a diversion for customs. It was pointed out that if all aircraft operators follow the rule of flight planning per ADIZ penetration requirements, this would not usually happen. The situation in which the reporter was a witness to was unusual in as much as the flight was indicated as returning from a foreign location VFR. This triggered the reason for the diversion. Apparently, ATC did not show the flight as entering the united states IFR. Therefore, quickresearch on customs part reflected a profile as mentioned causing the diversion. In addition, the delay on the ground at the diverted airport is a logistical concern of the customs and not either ATC or the FAA flight standards. Of course, pilots can always declare an emergency and land.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LTT JET WAS DIVERTED DURING AN ACR PROVING FLT TEST BY ATC TO ANOTHER ARPT FOR CUSTOMS.

Narrative: ON APR/XX/95, I WAS ASSIGNED TO PROVING FLTS IN A CESSNA CE-650 JET BEING ADDED TO AN ACR CERTIFICATE. AN IFR FLT PLAN WAS FILED FROM NEW YORK TO MELBOURNE, FL, BY WAY OF FREEPORT, BAHAMAS. IN THE REMARKS SECTION WAS A NOTATION OF A LOW APCH ONLY WITH A MISSED APCH AT FREEPORT. ENRTE TO FREEPORT, ATC QUESTIONED THE CREW INTENTIONS AT FREEPORT. APPROX 200 MI FROM FREEPORT THE FLC ADVISED ATC OF THEIR INTENTIONS TO MAKE A LOW APCH AND MISSED APCH AT FREEPORT AND THEN TO PROCEED TO MELBOURNE, FL. BEFORE BEGINNING A VOR APCH THE FLC RECEIVED AN IFR CLRNC FOR BOTH THE LOW IFR APCH AND MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS AT FREEPORT. THE MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED ROUTING TO MELBOURNE AN INITIAL ALT RESTR OF 6000 FT UNTIL ESTABLISHED ON THE AIRWAY AND THEN TO MAINTAIN FL230, FLT LEVEL 23000 FT. THE CREW WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO RPT THE FOLLOWING COMPULSORY POSITIONS, RAPPS INTXN INBOUND TO FREEPORT, FREEPORT VOR OUTBOUND, PROC TURN INBOUND, AND MISSED APCH. AFTER THE LOW APCH, THE ACFT PROCEEDED TO MELBOURNE. WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR AN NDB APCH AND WHILE ON DOWNWIND, THE CREW WAS TOLD BY ATC, 'UNITED STATES CUSTOMS REQUIRES NXXXXX TO BE DIVERTED TO FT PIERCE SO AS TO CLR CUSTOMS AND THAT LNDG CLRNC TO MELBOURNE IS DENIED.' ATC WAS ADVISED BY THE CREW THAT THE AIRPLANE HAD NOT LANDED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND THAT 4 FAA INSPECTORS WERE ONBOARD THE ACFT. AGAIN, ATC ADVISED THE CREW OF THE ABOVE REMARKS. THE FLC THEN QUERIED ATC ON WHETHER CUSTOMS WOULD BE AT THE ARPT. THE LCL TIME WAS AFTER 00 HRS. ATC STATED THEY WERE CHKING THIS OUT AND IF CUSTOMS WERE NOT AT FT PIERCE THEN THE ACFT WOULD BE DIVERTED TO EITHER ORLANDO OR MIAMI. A SHORT TIME LATER ATC ADVISED THE CREW THAT CUSTOMS WAS WAITING, STANDING BY AT THE FT PIERCE ARPT. DUE TO THE LATE ARR, FT PIERCE ATCT WAS CLOSED AND NO WX RPTING FOR THE ARPT WAS AVAILABLE. IN THE TFC PATTERN WERE SEVERAL SMALL SINGLE ENG ACFT WHICH APPEARED TO BE ON TRAINING FLT. UPON ARR AT THE FT PIERCE CUSTOMS RAMP, THE RAMP AND CUSTOMS BUILDING WAS DESERTED. APPROX 20 MINS LATER CUSTOMS DID ARRIVE. FUEL REMAINING IN THE ACFT WAS LESS THAN 1500 LBS, NOT ENOUGH FUEL TO LEGALLY OR SAFELY DEPART FT PIERCE AND GO TO ANOTHER ARPT. THE CUSTOMS OFFICER AT FT PIERCE, INSPECTOR, INFORMED US THAT HE HAD 1 HR TO RESPOND TO AN AFTER HRS RETURN TO WORK CALL AND AS SUCH WE COULD HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THE RAMP FOR ANOTHER 45 MINS WITHOUT ANYONE OBSERVING OUR ACTIVITIES. IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE FACILITY RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVERTING THE FLT, INFORMED US THAT WE WERE ON A VFR FLT PLAN AS PER ZMA AND FLYING IN INTL AIRSPACE WITH AN ACFT REGISTRATION DATED TODAY'S DATE. THEREFORE WE COULD NOT HAVE A VALID FAA ACFT REGISTRATION ONBOARD THE AIRPLANE AND AS SUCH WE FIT A PROFILE WHERE CUSTOMS INTERVENTION IS REQUIRED. WHEN THESE FACTS WERE DISPUTED I WAS THEN TOLD THAT EVEN ON AN IFR FLT PLAN OVER FLYING A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT FLYING THROUGH THE ADIZ, AIR DEFENSE IDENT ZONE, THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO CLR CUSTOMS. A COPY OF THE ACFT PINK SLIP AND FAX REGISTRATION WAS PRESENTED TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS. AFTER OBTAINING ALL THE FACTS, INSPECTOR BASICALLY STATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR US TO CLR CUSTOMS, AND THAT WE COULD CONTINUE ON OUR FLT. INSPECTOR FURTHER STATED THAT ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS THAT AN ACFT IS DIVERTED WITHIN FLORIDA FROM ARPT OF INTENDED LNDG TO ANOTHER ARPT FOR CUSTOMS REQUIREMENTS. MOST OF THE DIVERSIONS ARE FOR SMALL SINGLE ENG AIRPLANES. NOW A REFUELER HAD TO COME TO THE ARPT AND THE OWNERS OF THE ACFT HAD TO PAY A SVC CHARGE FOR AFTER HRS REFUELING. AFTER BEING REFUELED, THE FLT PROCEEDED TO MELBOURNE AND LANDED AFTER MIDNIGHT. AGAIN ARR WAS INTO AN ARPT WITHOUT AN OPERATING CTL TWR. BY NOW THE FLC APPEARED TO BE VERY TIRED AND SAFETY WAS NOT AS HIGH AS IF THE FLT HAD NOT BEEN DIVERTED. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS: THERE APPEARS TO BE NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR NXXXX TO BE DIVERTED AND CLR CUSTOMS FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED FLT. AS RPTED BY CUSTOMS INSPECTOR THE PROB APPEARS TO BE A SYSTEMIC PROB WHICH HAPPENS ON AT LEAST A WEEKLY BASIS IF NOT A DAILY A BASIS. THE MIXING OF JET TFC WITH SINGLE ENG TRAINING AIRPLANES AT AN UNCTLED ARPT AT NIGHT COULD JEOPARDIZE SAFETY. A TIRED FLC THAT IS DIVERTED AND DELAYED IS AGAIN A DETERRENT TO SAFETY. A TIMID AND FRIGHTENED PVT PLT, WHO HAS HEARD HORROR STORIES ABOUT UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND ATC, THAT IS ORDERED BY ATC TO DIVERT TO ANOTHER ARPT BECAUSE OF UNITED STATES CUSTOMS REQUIREMENTS AND PERMISSION TO LAND AT AN ARPT IS DENIED, COULD BE AN ACCIDENT LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO HAPPEN EITHER BECAUSE OF FUEL STARVATION OR LOSS OF DIRECTIONAL CTL BECAUSE OF CONTINUED FLT BY A VFR PLT INTO MARGINAL OR INST METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS. THE COST OF UNNECESSARY DIVERSIONS IS SUBSTANTIAL. BEING DIVERTED TO AN ARPT WITHOUT ANY LAW OR CUSTOMS OFFICERS PRESENT FOR THE LNDG APPEARS TO BE AN INEFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT. WHEN FAA ACFT REGISTRATION ARE ISSUED BY FAX, THEN SOME NOTATION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE COMPUTER SYS SO THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN SEE THAT A VALID REGISTRATION IS OR COULD BE IN THE ACFT. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SOME OVER ZEALOUS AIR TFC CTLRS TO BE PLAYING A POTENTIALLY DEADLY GAME OF COPS AND ROBBERS WITH THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PERSONS? WHAT KIND OF INCENTIVES ARE THERE FOR ATC CTLRS TO MISREPRESENT ACFT FLT INFO? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE REALIZES THAT UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND ATC WERE JUST DOING THEIR JOB. HOWEVER, HE WAS CONCERNED THAT SOME PVT PLTS IN PARTICULAR WOULD BE INTIMATED INTO OPERATING IN IFR OR WHILE LOW ON FUEL BY A DIVERSION FOR CUSTOMS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IF ALL ACFT OPERATORS FOLLOW THE RULE OF FLT PLANNING PER ADIZ PENETRATION REQUIREMENTS, THIS WOULD NOT USUALLY HAPPEN. THE SIT IN WHICH THE RPTR WAS A WITNESS TO WAS UNUSUAL IN AS MUCH AS THE FLT WAS INDICATED AS RETURNING FROM A FOREIGN LOCATION VFR. THIS TRIGGERED THE REASON FOR THE DIVERSION. APPARENTLY, ATC DID NOT SHOW THE FLT AS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES IFR. THEREFORE, QUICKRESEARCH ON CUSTOMS PART REFLECTED A PROFILE AS MENTIONED CAUSING THE DIVERSION. IN ADDITION, THE DELAY ON THE GND AT THE DIVERTED ARPT IS A LOGISTICAL CONCERN OF THE CUSTOMS AND NOT EITHER ATC OR THE FAA FLT STANDARDS. OF COURSE, PLTS CAN ALWAYS DECLARE AN EMER AND LAND.

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.