 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An instructor pilot and his student flying a C172 near mtn reports difficulty with ATC during his training flight.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 442990 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199907 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : dca.tracon |
| State Reference | DC |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : bwi.tracon |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | landing : go around |
| Route In Use | approach : instrument precision |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : instructor oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 20 flight time total : 2900 |
| ASRS Report | 442990 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : trainee |
| Qualification | pilot : private |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera other controllerb |
| Resolutory Action | controller : provided flight assist flight crew : exited adverse environment |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Intra Facility Coordination Failure |
Narrative:
Training flight under IFR for applicant in late stage of preparation for flight test for instrument rating on private pilot certificate. Had filed separate flight plans for segment from gai to mtn, and for return gai. Baltimore approach cleared us for mtn localizer approach to runway 15, maintaining 2500 ft until intercepting approach course. Subsequently cleared to contact tower. Upon contacting tower they advised of traffic south of 'the shopping center' and that we were #2. We continued the ILS approach. (Our original clearance limit was the mtn airport and this had not been revised.) approaching minimums I realized we had not received clearance to land, and I requested clearance 'for the option.' this was granted (and acknowledged). Upon reaching the approach end of the runway I instructed the student to do a missed approach. He initiated this promptly, advised ATC and turned right, following the published procedure. The tower was overheard to tell another aircraft about an aircraft (I believe this aircraft was us) that had made a right turn out 'on his own.' there was a hint of annoyance in the tower controller's voice. Then he asked our intentions. I requested that we pick up our clearance back to gai. We were cleared to a heading and told to contact departure control. On departure frequency we reported 1800 ft climbing assigned altitude. The same controller who had cleared us for the approach cleared us to a new heading and 3000 ft. Then she admonished us that we should have told them our intentions. I responded that we regretted any difficulty caused, that we'd thought we'd told the tower (the request for the option), and that in any case we would be more explicit and earlier in providing such information in the future. The controller spit out that the tower said we had not informed them, and that she had no indication of our intentions. She asked us how we intended to end the approach at gai and I replied 'full stop.' her voice seemed to have a sarcastic tone. Shortly thereafter another controller took over the frequency. A few mins later I heard him ask an aircraft what their intentions were at gai. Hearing no response, I asked the controller if that was for our n-number. The controller said nothing. Several mins later he asked us specifically what we intended to do at gai, and I informed him 'full stop' landing. We were handed off to another frequency. Approaching the final approach course we were given a 240 degree heading (almost 90 degrees to the 155 degree final), but not given an approach clearance. As the vector took us through the approach course I asked if that was intended. The controller apologized and gave us a 120 degree heading, followed shortly by a clearance for the approach. The controller advised we were 3 mi from filix and offered another intercept. I thanked him, declined and canceled IFR. Upon reflection, I need to be more proactive in assuring ATC knows our intentions. While we were in compliance with our IFR clearance, I should have made it clear to the tower that we were IFR and had no idea where the 'shopping center' was located and we should have inquired earlier about a landing/option clearance.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN INSTRUCTOR PLT AND HIS STUDENT FLYING A C172 NEAR MTN RPTS DIFFICULTY WITH ATC DURING HIS TRAINING FLT.
Narrative: TRAINING FLT UNDER IFR FOR APPLICANT IN LATE STAGE OF PREPARATION FOR FLT TEST FOR INST RATING ON PVT PLT CERTIFICATE. HAD FILED SEPARATE FLT PLANS FOR SEGMENT FROM GAI TO MTN, AND FOR RETURN GAI. BALTIMORE APCH CLRED US FOR MTN LOC APCH TO RWY 15, MAINTAINING 2500 FT UNTIL INTERCEPTING APCH COURSE. SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED TO CONTACT TWR. UPON CONTACTING TWR THEY ADVISED OF TFC S OF 'THE SHOPPING CTR' AND THAT WE WERE #2. WE CONTINUED THE ILS APCH. (OUR ORIGINAL CLRNC LIMIT WAS THE MTN ARPT AND THIS HAD NOT BEEN REVISED.) APCHING MINIMUMS I REALIZED WE HAD NOT RECEIVED CLRNC TO LAND, AND I REQUESTED CLRNC 'FOR THE OPTION.' THIS WAS GRANTED (AND ACKNOWLEDGED). UPON REACHING THE APCH END OF THE RWY I INSTRUCTED THE STUDENT TO DO A MISSED APCH. HE INITIATED THIS PROMPTLY, ADVISED ATC AND TURNED R, FOLLOWING THE PUBLISHED PROC. THE TWR WAS OVERHEARD TO TELL ANOTHER ACFT ABOUT AN ACFT (I BELIEVE THIS ACFT WAS US) THAT HAD MADE A R TURN OUT 'ON HIS OWN.' THERE WAS A HINT OF ANNOYANCE IN THE TWR CTLR'S VOICE. THEN HE ASKED OUR INTENTIONS. I REQUESTED THAT WE PICK UP OUR CLRNC BACK TO GAI. WE WERE CLRED TO A HEADING AND TOLD TO CONTACT DEP CTL. ON DEP FREQ WE RPTED 1800 FT CLBING ASSIGNED ALT. THE SAME CTLR WHO HAD CLRED US FOR THE APCH CLRED US TO A NEW HEADING AND 3000 FT. THEN SHE ADMONISHED US THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM OUR INTENTIONS. I RESPONDED THAT WE REGRETTED ANY DIFFICULTY CAUSED, THAT WE'D THOUGHT WE'D TOLD THE TWR (THE REQUEST FOR THE OPTION), AND THAT IN ANY CASE WE WOULD BE MORE EXPLICIT AND EARLIER IN PROVIDING SUCH INFO IN THE FUTURE. THE CTLR SPIT OUT THAT THE TWR SAID WE HAD NOT INFORMED THEM, AND THAT SHE HAD NO INDICATION OF OUR INTENTIONS. SHE ASKED US HOW WE INTENDED TO END THE APCH AT GAI AND I REPLIED 'FULL STOP.' HER VOICE SEEMED TO HAVE A SARCASTIC TONE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER ANOTHER CTLR TOOK OVER THE FREQ. A FEW MINS LATER I HEARD HIM ASK AN ACFT WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS WERE AT GAI. HEARING NO RESPONSE, I ASKED THE CTLR IF THAT WAS FOR OUR N-NUMBER. THE CTLR SAID NOTHING. SEVERAL MINS LATER HE ASKED US SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO AT GAI, AND I INFORMED HIM 'FULL STOP' LNDG. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO ANOTHER FREQ. APCHING THE FINAL APCH COURSE WE WERE GIVEN A 240 DEG HDG (ALMOST 90 DEGS TO THE 155 DEG FINAL), BUT NOT GIVEN AN APCH CLRNC. AS THE VECTOR TOOK US THROUGH THE APCH COURSE I ASKED IF THAT WAS INTENDED. THE CTLR APOLOGIZED AND GAVE US A 120 DEG HDG, FOLLOWED SHORTLY BY A CLRNC FOR THE APCH. THE CTLR ADVISED WE WERE 3 MI FROM FILIX AND OFFERED ANOTHER INTERCEPT. I THANKED HIM, DECLINED AND CANCELED IFR. UPON REFLECTION, I NEED TO BE MORE PROACTIVE IN ASSURING ATC KNOWS OUR INTENTIONS. WHILE WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR IFR CLRNC, I SHOULD HAVE MADE IT CLR TO THE TWR THAT WE WERE IFR AND HAD NO IDEA WHERE THE 'SHOPPING CTR' WAS LOCATED AND WE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED EARLIER ABOUT A LNDG/OPTION CLRNC.
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.