 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Heading track deviation and an unexpected airspace penetration by a PA28 training flight on an IFR flight plan south of mbs, mi.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 597561 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200310 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | navaid : mbs.vor |
| State Reference | MI |
| Altitude | msl single value : 3000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : mbs.tracon |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | PA-28 Cherokee Arrow IV |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | enroute airway : v45.airway |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : instructor |
| Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 35 flight time total : 6780 flight time type : 2000 |
| ASRS Report | 597561 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | other |
| Function | instruction : trainee |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | airspace violation : entry non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Environmental Factor ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
I was on a training flight acting as a CFI when the incident occurred. We were on an IFR flight plan and I was giving the student a stage check to determine if he was ready for an instrument practical test according to our flight school's policy. We were cleared to mbs via V-45. As we approached mbs, the student dialed the obs 180 degrees from where he should have, thus causing reverse sensing. I wanted to see what the student would do, but he never caught the error. I waited too long to correct the student and we apparently went into the airspace of an adjacent controller. I believe the situation arose because of 2 conflicting goals. One was to test the student and see what he would do. The other goal was to fly the proper route, especially on an IFR flight plan. Contributing factors were the VMC WX that may have made me complacent and a busy controller. I wanted to tell him what was going on, but couldn't. Also, the controller probably should have prioritized better since he saw us leaving his airspace, he should have said something. To prevent this from happening again, the obvious solution would be to not let the student go so far before intervening. Also, it may not be a good idea to give stage checks while on IFR flight plan.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: HEADING TRACK DEV AND AN UNEXPECTED AIRSPACE PENETRATION BY A PA28 TRAINING FLT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN S OF MBS, MI.
Narrative: I WAS ON A TRAINING FLT ACTING AS A CFI WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AND I WAS GIVING THE STUDENT A STAGE CHK TO DETERMINE IF HE WAS READY FOR AN INST PRACTICAL TEST ACCORDING TO OUR FLT SCHOOL'S POLICY. WE WERE CLRED TO MBS VIA V-45. AS WE APCHED MBS, THE STUDENT DIALED THE OBS 180 DEGS FROM WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE, THUS CAUSING REVERSE SENSING. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE STUDENT WOULD DO, BUT HE NEVER CAUGHT THE ERROR. I WAITED TOO LONG TO CORRECT THE STUDENT AND WE APPARENTLY WENT INTO THE AIRSPACE OF AN ADJACENT CTLR. I BELIEVE THE SIT AROSE BECAUSE OF 2 CONFLICTING GOALS. ONE WAS TO TEST THE STUDENT AND SEE WHAT HE WOULD DO. THE OTHER GOAL WAS TO FLY THE PROPER RTE, ESPECIALLY ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE THE VMC WX THAT MAY HAVE MADE ME COMPLACENT AND A BUSY CTLR. I WANTED TO TELL HIM WHAT WAS GOING ON, BUT COULDN'T. ALSO, THE CTLR PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE PRIORITIZED BETTER SINCE HE SAW US LEAVING HIS AIRSPACE, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING. TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN, THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION WOULD BE TO NOT LET THE STUDENT GO SO FAR BEFORE INTERVENING. ALSO, IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO GIVE STAGE CHKS WHILE ON IFR FLT PLAN.
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.