37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 311809 |
Time | |
Date | 199507 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : duj |
State Reference | PA |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 6000 msl bound upper : 6000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | Mixed |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | artcc : zny artcc : zob |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | cruise other other |
Route In Use | enroute : direct enroute airway : zny enroute other |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | instruction : instructor |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 20 flight time total : 600 flight time type : 100 |
ASRS Report | 311809 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : single pilot |
Qualification | pilot : private |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : far other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | other |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
This was the 1ST leg of a full day of IFR flight from the east coast to the midwest. As a flight instructor, I was acting as safety pilot and was making decisions regarding the flight. This leg was planned to leave 1 hour fuel reserve upon landing in our very low performance single. Unfortunately, due to complex airspace in the new york area, we were given an IFR clearance which added approximately 50 NM to our flight planned route. At this point, we should have questioned our ability to reach our destination with the fuel on board, but we figured we could make up some time in the air with perhaps a better routing. Next, after departure, we were vectored for climb in a direction opposite that of our course. 20 mins into our flight, we found ourselves over our departure airport at 4000 ft. As the flight progressed, the decision was made to land at an airport nearer to us than our flight plan filed destination. I called ZNY and requested direct duj for landing. He told me to make that request with ZOB and quickly handed me off. I checked in with ZOB and made my request. He said that my radio was weak due to distance from the antenna and that I should make my request in 10 mins. I immediately made my request again and was told if I needed assistance to call back ZNY. I did so, declared minimum fuel, and immediately was cleared direct duj and to descend. Subsequently, we were handed off again to cleveland and made an uneventful approach and landing. I now understand the need to include possible ATC induced delays in flight planning, especially around complex airspace, and that ATC communication coverage may be marginal in the proximity of center borders. Fortunately, everything turned out well due to the professionalism both in the cockpit and the ATC facilities. But this was only able to happen after we were able to effectively communication our situation to ATC.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AFTER EXPERIENCING ATC DELAYS, A LT ACFT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN WAS FORCED TO DIVERT AS A RESULT OF MINIMUM FUEL.
Narrative: THIS WAS THE 1ST LEG OF A FULL DAY OF IFR FLT FROM THE E COAST TO THE MIDWEST. AS A FLT INSTRUCTOR, I WAS ACTING AS SAFETY PLT AND WAS MAKING DECISIONS REGARDING THE FLT. THIS LEG WAS PLANNED TO LEAVE 1 HR FUEL RESERVE UPON LNDG IN OUR VERY LOW PERFORMANCE SINGLE. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO COMPLEX AIRSPACE IN THE NEW YORK AREA, WE WERE GIVEN AN IFR CLRNC WHICH ADDED APPROX 50 NM TO OUR FLT PLANNED RTE. AT THIS POINT, WE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED OUR ABILITY TO REACH OUR DEST WITH THE FUEL ON BOARD, BUT WE FIGURED WE COULD MAKE UP SOME TIME IN THE AIR WITH PERHAPS A BETTER ROUTING. NEXT, AFTER DEP, WE WERE VECTORED FOR CLB IN A DIRECTION OPPOSITE THAT OF OUR COURSE. 20 MINS INTO OUR FLT, WE FOUND OURSELVES OVER OUR DEP ARPT AT 4000 FT. AS THE FLT PROGRESSED, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO LAND AT AN ARPT NEARER TO US THAN OUR FLT PLAN FILED DEST. I CALLED ZNY AND REQUESTED DIRECT DUJ FOR LNDG. HE TOLD ME TO MAKE THAT REQUEST WITH ZOB AND QUICKLY HANDED ME OFF. I CHKED IN WITH ZOB AND MADE MY REQUEST. HE SAID THAT MY RADIO WAS WEAK DUE TO DISTANCE FROM THE ANTENNA AND THAT I SHOULD MAKE MY REQUEST IN 10 MINS. I IMMEDIATELY MADE MY REQUEST AGAIN AND WAS TOLD IF I NEEDED ASSISTANCE TO CALL BACK ZNY. I DID SO, DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL, AND IMMEDIATELY WAS CLRED DIRECT DUJ AND TO DSND. SUBSEQUENTLY, WE WERE HANDED OFF AGAIN TO CLEVELAND AND MADE AN UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG. I NOW UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO INCLUDE POSSIBLE ATC INDUCED DELAYS IN FLT PLANNING, ESPECIALLY AROUND COMPLEX AIRSPACE, AND THAT ATC COM COVERAGE MAY BE MARGINAL IN THE PROX OF CTR BORDERS. FORTUNATELY, EVERYTHING TURNED OUT WELL DUE TO THE PROFESSIONALISM BOTH IN THE COCKPIT AND THE ATC FACILITIES. BUT THIS WAS ONLY ABLE TO HAPPEN AFTER WE WERE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY COM OUR SIT TO ATC.
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.