Narrative:

I was hired to ferry a new aircraft with its new owner from portland, or, to georgetown, tx, via salt lake city, ut, and albuquerque, NM. The new owner did not have a fixed wing single or multi-engine nor instrument ratings. He had a private pilot helicopter certificate only. This was his 10TH hour in fixed wing aircraft and he expected to act as PIC while receiving instruction in front of a relative/passenger aboard. We departed portland, or, for salem, or, to pick up a relative/passenger. While on the ILS into salem, the owner/student lost control of the aircraft in IMC while in the ILS. I had to take control of the aircraft to save it from an uncontrolled flight into terrain. We picked up the passenger/relative in salem and departed to twin falls, identification, with no further incidents in this segment of the trip. While on the PROVO2 departure, out of pvu, the owner was displeased that the SID was taking us west, away from our destination versus the east, toward texas. He arbitrarily decided to take a shortcut and ignore the SID route. I was trying to do the navigation while he was trying to fly the aircraft through the autoplt, which he was still trying to learn to operate. While I was trying to enter the route to the VOR's and GPS, I noticed the deviation and, at the same time, the controller challenged my navigation. I realized what was going on and, when I queried the owner/student pilot, he stated he was arbitrarily taking a shortcut. I had to command him back to the published route. By then, the aircraft passed the VOR and we were 3 NM northwest of the pvu VOR and had to remind my student pilot to abide by ATC. At that time, again, the controller questioned our navigation and intentions. Corrective action was taken with no further deviation from clrncs for the rest of this portion of the journey. After refueling in abq, ATC gave us vectors to join an airway. Again, the owner was displeased and did not comply with ATC. Again, I was challenged by abq departure about our navigation and had to command the owner to abide by ATC instructions and navigation accordingly, regardless if it was extending the length of the journey. The owner was very agitated and demanded an expeditious return to texas since he had his business to attend and did not want to spend any unnecessary fuel -- and expense, in ATC routings away from his final destination. His intent was to fly direct to georgetown, tx (gtu) regardless of ATC routings. Accordingly, he was very uncooperative through the entire flight. I had to impose my authority/authorized, and take control of the aircraft several times, to complete the flight, at times through IMC that included moderate turbulence and icing. The new owner expected a quick transition to fixed wing multi-engine aircraft on the premise that he could fly helicopters. He expected to count this ferry flight as the training he needed for his multi-engine check ride plus expeditious return to his home base regardless of WX and terrain obstructions. His unrealistic expectations and behavior caused multiple ATC deviations and hazardous terrain avoidance sits, especially while in IMC. His ignorance of the ATC IFR system and the aircraft itself, caused me to deviation from ATC instructions while monitoring and correcting his actions behind the controls. This was especially challenging since he was trying to fly the airplane through an autoplt system that he did not fully understand and expected to learn through trial and error in an actual IFR flight. His get homeitis as cheaply and as fast as possible in an aircraft that was too complex for his skills, evolved into a hazardous attitude that I had to control through authoritarian commands to save the airplane and passenger at the expense of ATC deviations. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter took his pay and said good-bye to the new owner after arrival at gtu. He gave the owner a log entry stating that he had provided 10 hours of multi-engine training on a cross country flight, nothing else regarding performance, etc. The reporter voiced misgivings about the dangerous nature of this pilot, who almost killed himself recently in a helicopter after this flight. Analyst counseled the reporter on his feelings who then said that he would report the issues of this pilot's attitude and proficiency to the FAA via the hotline.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT RPT ON A PA34 FERRY FLT HAVING INSTRUCTIONAL PROBS WITH NEW OWNER ACTING AS PIC WHEN NOT QUALIFIED ON MULTI-ENG EQUIP. NUMEROUS DEVS FROM ATC CLRNCS WITH TERMINATION OF FLT AT GTU.

Narrative: I WAS HIRED TO FERRY A NEW ACFT WITH ITS NEW OWNER FROM PORTLAND, OR, TO GEORGETOWN, TX, VIA SALT LAKE CITY, UT, AND ALBUQUERQUE, NM. THE NEW OWNER DID NOT HAVE A FIXED WING SINGLE OR MULTI-ENG NOR INST RATINGS. HE HAD A PVT PLT HELI CERTIFICATE ONLY. THIS WAS HIS 10TH HR IN FIXED WING ACFT AND HE EXPECTED TO ACT AS PIC WHILE RECEIVING INSTRUCTION IN FRONT OF A RELATIVE/PAX ABOARD. WE DEPARTED PORTLAND, OR, FOR SALEM, OR, TO PICK UP A RELATIVE/PAX. WHILE ON THE ILS INTO SALEM, THE OWNER/STUDENT LOST CTL OF THE ACFT IN IMC WHILE IN THE ILS. I HAD TO TAKE CTL OF THE ACFT TO SAVE IT FROM AN UNCTLED FLT INTO TERRAIN. WE PICKED UP THE PAX/RELATIVE IN SALEM AND DEPARTED TO TWIN FALLS, ID, WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENTS IN THIS SEGMENT OF THE TRIP. WHILE ON THE PROVO2 DEP, OUT OF PVU, THE OWNER WAS DISPLEASED THAT THE SID WAS TAKING US W, AWAY FROM OUR DEST VERSUS THE E, TOWARD TEXAS. HE ARBITRARILY DECIDED TO TAKE A SHORTCUT AND IGNORE THE SID RTE. I WAS TRYING TO DO THE NAV WHILE HE WAS TRYING TO FLY THE ACFT THROUGH THE AUTOPLT, WHICH HE WAS STILL TRYING TO LEARN TO OPERATE. WHILE I WAS TRYING TO ENTER THE RTE TO THE VOR'S AND GPS, I NOTICED THE DEV AND, AT THE SAME TIME, THE CTLR CHALLENGED MY NAV. I REALIZED WHAT WAS GOING ON AND, WHEN I QUERIED THE OWNER/STUDENT PLT, HE STATED HE WAS ARBITRARILY TAKING A SHORTCUT. I HAD TO COMMAND HIM BACK TO THE PUBLISHED RTE. BY THEN, THE ACFT PASSED THE VOR AND WE WERE 3 NM NW OF THE PVU VOR AND HAD TO REMIND MY STUDENT PLT TO ABIDE BY ATC. AT THAT TIME, AGAIN, THE CTLR QUESTIONED OUR NAV AND INTENTIONS. CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN WITH NO FURTHER DEV FROM CLRNCS FOR THE REST OF THIS PORTION OF THE JOURNEY. AFTER REFUELING IN ABQ, ATC GAVE US VECTORS TO JOIN AN AIRWAY. AGAIN, THE OWNER WAS DISPLEASED AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH ATC. AGAIN, I WAS CHALLENGED BY ABQ DEP ABOUT OUR NAV AND HAD TO COMMAND THE OWNER TO ABIDE BY ATC INSTRUCTIONS AND NAV ACCORDINGLY, REGARDLESS IF IT WAS EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF THE JOURNEY. THE OWNER WAS VERY AGITATED AND DEMANDED AN EXPEDITIOUS RETURN TO TEXAS SINCE HE HAD HIS BUSINESS TO ATTEND AND DID NOT WANT TO SPEND ANY UNNECESSARY FUEL -- AND EXPENSE, IN ATC ROUTINGS AWAY FROM HIS FINAL DEST. HIS INTENT WAS TO FLY DIRECT TO GEORGETOWN, TX (GTU) REGARDLESS OF ATC ROUTINGS. ACCORDINGLY, HE WAS VERY UNCOOPERATIVE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FLT. I HAD TO IMPOSE MY AUTH, AND TAKE CTL OF THE ACFT SEVERAL TIMES, TO COMPLETE THE FLT, AT TIMES THROUGH IMC THAT INCLUDED MODERATE TURB AND ICING. THE NEW OWNER EXPECTED A QUICK TRANSITION TO FIXED WING MULTI-ENG ACFT ON THE PREMISE THAT HE COULD FLY HELIS. HE EXPECTED TO COUNT THIS FERRY FLT AS THE TRAINING HE NEEDED FOR HIS MULTI-ENG CHK RIDE PLUS EXPEDITIOUS RETURN TO HIS HOME BASE REGARDLESS OF WX AND TERRAIN OBSTRUCTIONS. HIS UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS AND BEHAVIOR CAUSED MULTIPLE ATC DEVS AND HAZARDOUS TERRAIN AVOIDANCE SITS, ESPECIALLY WHILE IN IMC. HIS IGNORANCE OF THE ATC IFR SYS AND THE ACFT ITSELF, CAUSED ME TO DEV FROM ATC INSTRUCTIONS WHILE MONITORING AND CORRECTING HIS ACTIONS BEHIND THE CTLS. THIS WAS ESPECIALLY CHALLENGING SINCE HE WAS TRYING TO FLY THE AIRPLANE THROUGH AN AUTOPLT SYS THAT HE DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND AND EXPECTED TO LEARN THROUGH TRIAL AND ERROR IN AN ACTUAL IFR FLT. HIS GET HOMEITIS AS CHEAPLY AND AS FAST AS POSSIBLE IN AN ACFT THAT WAS TOO COMPLEX FOR HIS SKILLS, EVOLVED INTO A HAZARDOUS ATTITUDE THAT I HAD TO CTL THROUGH AUTHORITARIAN COMMANDS TO SAVE THE AIRPLANE AND PAX AT THE EXPENSE OF ATC DEVS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR TOOK HIS PAY AND SAID GOOD-BYE TO THE NEW OWNER AFTER ARR AT GTU. HE GAVE THE OWNER A LOG ENTRY STATING THAT HE HAD PROVIDED 10 HRS OF MULTI-ENG TRAINING ON A XCOUNTRY FLT, NOTHING ELSE REGARDING PERFORMANCE, ETC. THE RPTR VOICED MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE DANGEROUS NATURE OF THIS PLT, WHO ALMOST KILLED HIMSELF RECENTLY IN A HELI AFTER THIS FLT. ANALYST COUNSELED THE RPTR ON HIS FEELINGS WHO THEN SAID THAT HE WOULD RPT THE ISSUES OF THIS PLT'S ATTITUDE AND PROFICIENCY TO THE FAA VIA THE HOTLINE.

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.