Narrative:

The event was a visual navigation flight for 2 students in the advanced phase of the multi-engine training syllabus. The students had made a charted plan on the ZZZ2 and ZZZ1 VFR sectional charts. The route was a prescribed route in the squadron's VNAV folder. The #1 student's VNAV route was annotated (with heading, distance and time blocks to indicate which direction to turn the aircraft upon reaching a check point) and was depicted on the student's chart as being outside of ZZZ1 class B airspace. The #2 student's route was outside and south of ZZZ1 class B airspace. There were several problem areas in this VNAV scenario. First, the instructor had recently been qualified for the VNAV stage and had not flown this particular route before. Second, the students did not properly annotate the heading from the city ZZZ3 to the west of ZZZ1 and the instructor did not catch the mistake. While the straight line drawn from ZZZ3 to the intermediate city, ZZZ4, between ZZZ3 and ZZZ5 airport indicated that the route would be outside of ZZZ1 class B airspace, the incorrect heading allowed the aircraft to deviate east of track. The instructor looked at the proximity of the route to the class B airspace, but he trusted the students to have made the correct heading annotations. However, the instructor did not get a straight edge and confirm the magnetic headings. Instead of using 2 of the same charts (because the route continued on the chart from the front page to the back page) it was later learned that the students made the heading from ZZZ3 to a common check point on both the front and back of the chart. The heading correction took place after the incident and upon referencing a body of water and making the appropriate heading change to the right to get back on course. The charter heading by the students actually allowed the aircraft to penetrate ZZZ1 class B airspace. The area was rural and the instructor used crossroads and railroad tracks during portions of the flight for navigation. Unfortunately, the crossroads and railroad tracks also extend to ZZZ airport area. When the incident started to happen, the student had been at the controls for the previous approximately 5 mins, then the instructor took the controls to allow the student to look at the chart and determine his current position. The aircraft came abeam and passed behind the light civil aircraft. The instructor had just taken the controls from the student and the student was the one who informed the instructor about the light civil aircraft. The instructor kept flying the aircraft on its current heading due to the light civil aircraft passing the trainer aircraft. The instructor asked the observer to keep an eye on the traffic. The aft observer reported to the instructor that the aircraft was no longer a factor. Taking the appropriate look at the headings and seeing if they matched up to the charts would have kept the aircraft outside of class B airspace and away from the ZZZ airport. The air crew coordination of stating, 'my head is down' would work very well in this type of situation and would keep the pilot at the controls from looking down inside the cockpit at the same time. The decision to fly abeam ZZZ1 class B airspace by 5-10 mi was not a good one when considering it was the instructor's first time and he was not familiar with the route. Winds were not properly taken into consideration when factoring in drift. The air crew should have called ZZZ1 center to request flight following when flying in the proximity of ZZZ1 airspace. There were many lessons learned during this incident. The most important lesson was eyes out doctrine while flying on a VFR route in particular, but always keeping a look out for any unrpted traffic. Equally important is that the instructor should have more carefully reviewed the entire flight plan route to ensure it did not come close (or inside) airspace such as ZZZ1 class B. Also, while flying on a VFR flight, flight following from a controling agency should be used as much as possible to give advisories of aircraft traffic. Another lesson learned was T use a radial and DME from a known airport if flying an unfamiliar VFR course. Another aid would have been the use of GPS to help navigation on an unfamiliar course to keep the aircraft on course.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TC-12B HAS NMAC WITH CIVIL SMA AFTER INADVERTENT ENTRY INTO CLASS B AIRSPACE ON MIL TRAINING FLT.

Narrative: THE EVENT WAS A VISUAL NAV FLT FOR 2 STUDENTS IN THE ADVANCED PHASE OF THE MULTI-ENG TRAINING SYLLABUS. THE STUDENTS HAD MADE A CHARTED PLAN ON THE ZZZ2 AND ZZZ1 VFR SECTIONAL CHARTS. THE RTE WAS A PRESCRIBED RTE IN THE SQUADRON'S VNAV FOLDER. THE #1 STUDENT'S VNAV RTE WAS ANNOTATED (WITH HDG, DISTANCE AND TIME BLOCKS TO INDICATE WHICH DIRECTION TO TURN THE ACFT UPON REACHING A CHK POINT) AND WAS DEPICTED ON THE STUDENT'S CHART AS BEING OUTSIDE OF ZZZ1 CLASS B AIRSPACE. THE #2 STUDENT'S RTE WAS OUTSIDE AND S OF ZZZ1 CLASS B AIRSPACE. THERE WERE SEVERAL PROB AREAS IN THIS VNAV SCENARIO. FIRST, THE INSTRUCTOR HAD RECENTLY BEEN QUALIFIED FOR THE VNAV STAGE AND HAD NOT FLOWN THIS PARTICULAR RTE BEFORE. SECOND, THE STUDENTS DID NOT PROPERLY ANNOTATE THE HDG FROM THE CITY ZZZ3 TO THE W OF ZZZ1 AND THE INSTRUCTOR DID NOT CATCH THE MISTAKE. WHILE THE STRAIGHT LINE DRAWN FROM ZZZ3 TO THE INTERMEDIATE CITY, ZZZ4, BTWN ZZZ3 AND ZZZ5 ARPT INDICATED THAT THE RTE WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF ZZZ1 CLASS B AIRSPACE, THE INCORRECT HDG ALLOWED THE ACFT TO DEVIATE E OF TRACK. THE INSTRUCTOR LOOKED AT THE PROX OF THE RTE TO THE CLASS B AIRSPACE, BUT HE TRUSTED THE STUDENTS TO HAVE MADE THE CORRECT HDG ANNOTATIONS. HOWEVER, THE INSTRUCTOR DID NOT GET A STRAIGHT EDGE AND CONFIRM THE MAGNETIC HDGS. INSTEAD OF USING 2 OF THE SAME CHARTS (BECAUSE THE RTE CONTINUED ON THE CHART FROM THE FRONT PAGE TO THE BACK PAGE) IT WAS LATER LEARNED THAT THE STUDENTS MADE THE HDG FROM ZZZ3 TO A COMMON CHK POINT ON BOTH THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE CHART. THE HDG CORRECTION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE INCIDENT AND UPON REFING A BODY OF WATER AND MAKING THE APPROPRIATE HDG CHANGE TO THE R TO GET BACK ON COURSE. THE CHARTER HDG BY THE STUDENTS ACTUALLY ALLOWED THE ACFT TO PENETRATE ZZZ1 CLASS B AIRSPACE. THE AREA WAS RURAL AND THE INSTRUCTOR USED CROSSROADS AND RAILROAD TRACKS DURING PORTIONS OF THE FLT FOR NAV. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CROSSROADS AND RAILROAD TRACKS ALSO EXTEND TO ZZZ ARPT AREA. WHEN THE INCIDENT STARTED TO HAPPEN, THE STUDENT HAD BEEN AT THE CTLS FOR THE PREVIOUS APPROX 5 MINS, THEN THE INSTRUCTOR TOOK THE CTLS TO ALLOW THE STUDENT TO LOOK AT THE CHART AND DETERMINE HIS CURRENT POS. THE ACFT CAME ABEAM AND PASSED BEHIND THE LIGHT CIVIL ACFT. THE INSTRUCTOR HAD JUST TAKEN THE CTLS FROM THE STUDENT AND THE STUDENT WAS THE ONE WHO INFORMED THE INSTRUCTOR ABOUT THE LIGHT CIVIL ACFT. THE INSTRUCTOR KEPT FLYING THE ACFT ON ITS CURRENT HDG DUE TO THE LIGHT CIVIL ACFT PASSING THE TRAINER ACFT. THE INSTRUCTOR ASKED THE OBSERVER TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE TFC. THE AFT OBSERVER RPTED TO THE INSTRUCTOR THAT THE ACFT WAS NO LONGER A FACTOR. TAKING THE APPROPRIATE LOOK AT THE HDGS AND SEEING IF THEY MATCHED UP TO THE CHARTS WOULD HAVE KEPT THE ACFT OUTSIDE OF CLASS B AIRSPACE AND AWAY FROM THE ZZZ ARPT. THE AIR CREW COORD OF STATING, 'MY HEAD IS DOWN' WOULD WORK VERY WELL IN THIS TYPE OF SIT AND WOULD KEEP THE PLT AT THE CTLS FROM LOOKING DOWN INSIDE THE COCKPIT AT THE SAME TIME. THE DECISION TO FLY ABEAM ZZZ1 CLASS B AIRSPACE BY 5-10 MI WAS NOT A GOOD ONE WHEN CONSIDERING IT WAS THE INSTRUCTOR'S FIRST TIME AND HE WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE RTE. WINDS WERE NOT PROPERLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN FACTORING IN DRIFT. THE AIR CREW SHOULD HAVE CALLED ZZZ1 CTR TO REQUEST FLT FOLLOWING WHEN FLYING IN THE PROX OF ZZZ1 AIRSPACE. THERE WERE MANY LESSONS LEARNED DURING THIS INCIDENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON WAS EYES OUT DOCTRINE WHILE FLYING ON A VFR RTE IN PARTICULAR, BUT ALWAYS KEEPING A LOOK OUT FOR ANY UNRPTED TFC. EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT THE INSTRUCTOR SHOULD HAVE MORE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE ENTIRE FLT PLAN RTE TO ENSURE IT DID NOT COME CLOSE (OR INSIDE) AIRSPACE SUCH AS ZZZ1 CLASS B. ALSO, WHILE FLYING ON A VFR FLT, FLT FOLLOWING FROM A CTLING AGENCY SHOULD BE USED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO GIVE ADVISORIES OF ACFT TFC. ANOTHER LESSON LEARNED WAS T USE A RADIAL AND DME FROM A KNOWN ARPT IF FLYING AN UNFAMILIAR VFR COURSE. ANOTHER AID WOULD HAVE BEEN THE USE OF GPS TO HELP NAV ON AN UNFAMILIAR COURSE TO KEEP THE ACFT ON COURSE.

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.