37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 425212 |
Time | |
Date | 199901 |
Day | Wed |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : gnv airport : srq airport : x60 |
State Reference | FL |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 1600 msl bound upper : 8000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | Mixed |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | PA-28 Cherokee/Archer II/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior |
Navigation In Use | other vortac |
Flight Phase | climbout : intermediate altitude cruise other |
Route In Use | departure other enroute : on vectors enroute airway : v579 |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : single pilot |
Qualification | pilot : instrument |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 45 flight time total : 2250 flight time type : 1800 |
ASRS Report | 425212 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | other personnel other |
Qualification | other |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Air Traffic Incident | Intra Facility Coordination Failure Inter Facility Coordination Failure other |
Situations | |
ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Navigational Aid | Unspecified |
Narrative:
Flight planning was ineffective because pilot did not have accurate information. Factors bearing on the problem: 1) prior to flight, the pilot did not specifically ask gnv FSS if gnv VOR was operational. 2) the ARTCC computer accepted and cleared 2 flts for which a needed NAVAID was OTS. 3) gnv FSS did not notify the pilot that a NAVAID needed was OTS. 4) st petersburg FSS apparently did not know that gnv was OTS. On jan/sa/99, I flew VFR into williston, fl (X60). From there, I filed an IFR flight plan with gnv FSS to sarasota, fl (srq). No NOTAMS were issued that the gnv was OTS. The chart (flight information publication, IFR en route low altitude -- united states, effective dec/xa/98, L-19) shows gnv overprinted as abnormal status with a note above the box which says, 'check NOTAMS.' I did not specifically ask for the status of gnv, although the FSS did indicate no equipment outages along the route. I filed 'X60 direct perse intersection V579 srq.' I filed equipment type as 'a' which, of course, doesn't include RNAV and obviously means I must use vors. After takeoff I could not pick up gnv to find perse and fly on V579. I notified ZJX that I was not receiving gnv and center passed me to tampa approach for further direction. Tampa radar vectored me to final approach. No problem, WX was VFR the entire route. However, if conditions had been IFR, and I had a radio outage, I may have had difficulty in maintaining V579 limits using VOR as the next VOR (pif) is 93 mi away. On jan/xa/99, I flew the reverse route. This time I specifically asked st petersburg FSS if gnv was operational. The FSS briefer assured me that it was. I filed srq direct lal V157 gnv landing at X60. The clearance at takeoff was 'cleared to X60, radar vectors to lal V157 to gnv. Initial heading of 360 degrees. Climb and maintain 1600 ft, expect 8000 ft within 10 mins, frequency 119.65, squawk XXXX.' ceiling was 600 ft. After takeoff, climbed to 8000 ft and was in VFR. About 1/2 way to gnv, I tried to receive gnv. No luck. WX was now VFR to the ground, so canceled IFR and proceeded to X60 VFR. Proceeding VFR, I called gnv FSS and asked if the gnv was OTS. The FSS specialist informed me that gnv had not been operational since aug/98 and that it would remain OTS until it was moved to a different location in the future. No problem, WX was VFR. No unsafe sits occurred during these 2 flts. Solution: program the ARTCC computers to not accept IFR flight plans for which navaids are not available. This should include short term OTS, but more importantly long term outages. Program the FSS computers so they will notify the briefer when a needed NAVAID is OTS. This should also include short term OTS, but must identify long term OTS. Place a caution in the aeronautical information manual that FSS's may not be aware of longstanding NAVAID outages and that ARTCC computers will accept flight plans with such anomalies. Discussion should be in chapter 4, section 1 and section 3 -- chapter 5, section 1: in paragraphs for preflight preparation and/or NOTAM. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was not able to provide any further information on the incident. Only after his return flight was he able to obtain information the gnv was OTS, and had been for a while -- advised sometime in 1998. The reporter questions the continued publication of gnv while OTS. Callback conversation with a gnv tower specialist revealed the following information: analyst was advised that gnv VORTAC was not only OTS, but decommissioned. The NAVAID has been OTS since jan/98 when local flooding rendered the NAVAID OTS and unusable. The NAVAID is being relocated to gnv airport, approximately 14 mi from its published position and planned commissioning in the last quarter of 1999. Government chart and a commercial chart publication continue to display gnv on its published approach charts, with no information concerning its decommissioning. Low altitude and VFR sectionals also display the NAVAID and associated airways. Only the commercial chart publisher notes that no alternate airways are published notamed.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A PA28 PLT DEPARTS ON IFR FLT PLAN VIA V579. WHEN AIRBORNE, PLT UNABLE TO RECEIVE GNV VORTAC. ZJX CTLR HDOF TO TPA CTLR WHO VECTORS PLT TO DEST. ON RETURN, PLT ALSO IS UNABLE TO RECEIVE GNV. CTLR ADVISES GNV OTS. PLT CONCERNED WITH DISSEMINATION OF NOTAM INFO.
Narrative: FLT PLANNING WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE PLT DID NOT HAVE ACCURATE INFO. FACTORS BEARING ON THE PROB: 1) PRIOR TO FLT, THE PLT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ASK GNV FSS IF GNV VOR WAS OPERATIONAL. 2) THE ARTCC COMPUTER ACCEPTED AND CLRED 2 FLTS FOR WHICH A NEEDED NAVAID WAS OTS. 3) GNV FSS DID NOT NOTIFY THE PLT THAT A NAVAID NEEDED WAS OTS. 4) ST PETERSBURG FSS APPARENTLY DID NOT KNOW THAT GNV WAS OTS. ON JAN/SA/99, I FLEW VFR INTO WILLISTON, FL (X60). FROM THERE, I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN WITH GNV FSS TO SARASOTA, FL (SRQ). NO NOTAMS WERE ISSUED THAT THE GNV WAS OTS. THE CHART (FLT INFO PUB, IFR ENRTE LOW ALT -- UNITED STATES, EFFECTIVE DEC/XA/98, L-19) SHOWS GNV OVERPRINTED AS ABNORMAL STATUS WITH A NOTE ABOVE THE BOX WHICH SAYS, 'CHK NOTAMS.' I DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR THE STATUS OF GNV, ALTHOUGH THE FSS DID INDICATE NO EQUIP OUTAGES ALONG THE RTE. I FILED 'X60 DIRECT PERSE INTXN V579 SRQ.' I FILED EQUIP TYPE AS 'A' WHICH, OF COURSE, DOESN'T INCLUDE RNAV AND OBVIOUSLY MEANS I MUST USE VORS. AFTER TKOF I COULD NOT PICK UP GNV TO FIND PERSE AND FLY ON V579. I NOTIFIED ZJX THAT I WAS NOT RECEIVING GNV AND CTR PASSED ME TO TAMPA APCH FOR FURTHER DIRECTION. TAMPA RADAR VECTORED ME TO FINAL APCH. NO PROB, WX WAS VFR THE ENTIRE RTE. HOWEVER, IF CONDITIONS HAD BEEN IFR, AND I HAD A RADIO OUTAGE, I MAY HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY IN MAINTAINING V579 LIMITS USING VOR AS THE NEXT VOR (PIF) IS 93 MI AWAY. ON JAN/XA/99, I FLEW THE REVERSE RTE. THIS TIME I SPECIFICALLY ASKED ST PETERSBURG FSS IF GNV WAS OPERATIONAL. THE FSS BRIEFER ASSURED ME THAT IT WAS. I FILED SRQ DIRECT LAL V157 GNV LNDG AT X60. THE CLRNC AT TKOF WAS 'CLRED TO X60, RADAR VECTORS TO LAL V157 TO GNV. INITIAL HDG OF 360 DEGS. CLB AND MAINTAIN 1600 FT, EXPECT 8000 FT WITHIN 10 MINS, FREQ 119.65, SQUAWK XXXX.' CEILING WAS 600 FT. AFTER TKOF, CLBED TO 8000 FT AND WAS IN VFR. ABOUT 1/2 WAY TO GNV, I TRIED TO RECEIVE GNV. NO LUCK. WX WAS NOW VFR TO THE GND, SO CANCELED IFR AND PROCEEDED TO X60 VFR. PROCEEDING VFR, I CALLED GNV FSS AND ASKED IF THE GNV WAS OTS. THE FSS SPECIALIST INFORMED ME THAT GNV HAD NOT BEEN OPERATIONAL SINCE AUG/98 AND THAT IT WOULD REMAIN OTS UNTIL IT WAS MOVED TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THE FUTURE. NO PROB, WX WAS VFR. NO UNSAFE SITS OCCURRED DURING THESE 2 FLTS. SOLUTION: PROGRAM THE ARTCC COMPUTERS TO NOT ACCEPT IFR FLT PLANS FOR WHICH NAVAIDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THIS SHOULD INCLUDE SHORT TERM OTS, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY LONG TERM OUTAGES. PROGRAM THE FSS COMPUTERS SO THEY WILL NOTIFY THE BRIEFER WHEN A NEEDED NAVAID IS OTS. THIS SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE SHORT TERM OTS, BUT MUST IDENT LONG TERM OTS. PLACE A CAUTION IN THE AERO INFO MANUAL THAT FSS'S MAY NOT BE AWARE OF LONGSTANDING NAVAID OUTAGES AND THAT ARTCC COMPUTERS WILL ACCEPT FLT PLANS WITH SUCH ANOMALIES. DISCUSSION SHOULD BE IN CHAPTER 4, SECTION 1 AND SECTION 3 -- CHAPTER 5, SECTION 1: IN PARAGRAPHS FOR PREFLT PREPARATION AND/OR NOTAM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER INFO ON THE INCIDENT. ONLY AFTER HIS RETURN FLT WAS HE ABLE TO OBTAIN INFO THE GNV WAS OTS, AND HAD BEEN FOR A WHILE -- ADVISED SOMETIME IN 1998. THE RPTR QUESTIONS THE CONTINUED PUB OF GNV WHILE OTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH A GNV TWR SPECIALIST REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST WAS ADVISED THAT GNV VORTAC WAS NOT ONLY OTS, BUT DECOMMISSIONED. THE NAVAID HAS BEEN OTS SINCE JAN/98 WHEN LCL FLOODING RENDERED THE NAVAID OTS AND UNUSABLE. THE NAVAID IS BEING RELOCATED TO GNV ARPT, APPROX 14 MI FROM ITS PUBLISHED POS AND PLANNED COMMISSIONING IN THE LAST QUARTER OF 1999. GOV CHART AND A COMMERCIAL CHART PUB CONTINUE TO DISPLAY GNV ON ITS PUBLISHED APCH CHARTS, WITH NO INFO CONCERNING ITS DECOMMISSIONING. LOW ALT AND VFR SECTIONALS ALSO DISPLAY THE NAVAID AND ASSOCIATED AIRWAYS. ONLY THE COMMERCIAL CHART PUBLISHER NOTES THAT NO ALTERNATE AIRWAYS ARE PUBLISHED NOTAMED.
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.