Narrative:

IFR flight plan on file and flying was as follows: sgr-IDU2 departure V68 marcs intersection direct hyi direct baz direct sat direct sgr. Comments section of flight plan: approachs to be performed at each airport. We received our clearance and launched at approximately XA20 am. After leaving sgr tower; we talked with houston departure; then xferred to ZHU; and finally to austin approach (aus). We arrived at san marcos (hyi) and completed the ILS runway 13 approach with a missed approach. After completing our missed approach into hyi; we requested to proceed to baz for a GPS runway 13 approach. Aus approach vectored us to baz; cleared us for the GPS runway 13 approach with a 140 degree intercept angle (which we felt was an unusual intercept angle). After being cleared for the approach we were told to contact tower (no frequency was given). The tower frequency is not published on the commercial approach plate. At that time we contacted unicom to obtain the frequency for tower. We continued the approach to MDA and contacted tower. This approach was concluded as a low approach and we reported the missed. Tower acknowledged and handed us off to san antonio (sat) approach (124.45). At that time sat approach asked us what our intentions were. We stated that we would do the published hold. We requested an expect further clearance time. Sat approach acknowledged and gave us an efc of XH00. We then entered the hold for 2 laps. After the first lap we made 2 attempts to contact sat approach after completing our first lap. Sat approach then contacted us at the efc asking what our intentions were. When we reported that we would like to do an approach into san antonio and then back to sgr; approach control replied; 'do you have a flight plan on file?' we stated we were currently on an IFR flight plan. He responded that we were not on an IFR flight plan and told us to contact flight service on 122.2 or 122.3; and report back to him; which we did immediately. Evidently we were not on an IFR flight plan while flying IMC. We reported our position to flight service (east of sat VOR at 23 NM). Flight service informed us that she could not file a flight plan from our present position to san antonio; but she could and did file a flight plan for us from san antonio to sugar land. When we reported back with sat approach the controller was waiting for our return call. The controller gave us a vector and asked if we were ready to copy our clearance from sat to sgr. We then flew the ILS runway 12R approach into sat; low approach; executed a missed and was given a heading of 030 degrees to intercept 081 degrees off sat VOR and continued back to sgr. The question is: at what point did our IFR flight plan get canceled or dropped? We evidently became VFR in the system while flying IMC and believing the whole time that we were still flying protected under IFR? At no time did we 'cancel our flight plan;' nor were we directed to 'maintain VFR' (which of course; we could not have done). After reconstructing this flight experience; we determined we must have been dropped out of the IFR system somewhere either before or after we contacted baz tower. Now that we are safely positioned on the ground and with time to reflect on this situation; we conclude that we should have been more persistent in obtaining an immediate clearance from sat approach once we were notified we were not on an IFR flight plan since we were IMC. Being xferred to flight service to obtain an IFR flight plan while IMC is not an acceptable procedure. It is still a mystery what happened to the IFR flight plan we thought we were on while flying this round robin trip. The problem may have been somewhere in transitioning from being cleared by aus approach for the approach into baz and then executing and reporting the missed approach with sat approach. Somewhere there was a failure to xfer information within the system. Believing we were on an IFR flight plan in IMC and not actually being on an IFR flight plan; is an unsafe and unacceptable situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT ON IFR FLT WITH MULTIPLE SEGMENTS AND APCH REQUESTS IS QUESTIONED BY ATC REGARDING STATUS OF FLT WHEN IN IMC CONDITIONS.

Narrative: IFR FLT PLAN ON FILE AND FLYING WAS AS FOLLOWS: SGR-IDU2 DEP V68 MARCS INTXN DIRECT HYI DIRECT BAZ DIRECT SAT DIRECT SGR. COMMENTS SECTION OF FLT PLAN: APCHS TO BE PERFORMED AT EACH ARPT. WE RECEIVED OUR CLRNC AND LAUNCHED AT APPROX XA20 AM. AFTER LEAVING SGR TWR; WE TALKED WITH HOUSTON DEP; THEN XFERRED TO ZHU; AND FINALLY TO AUSTIN APCH (AUS). WE ARRIVED AT SAN MARCOS (HYI) AND COMPLETED THE ILS RWY 13 APCH WITH A MISSED APCH. AFTER COMPLETING OUR MISSED APCH INTO HYI; WE REQUESTED TO PROCEED TO BAZ FOR A GPS RWY 13 APCH. AUS APCH VECTORED US TO BAZ; CLRED US FOR THE GPS RWY 13 APCH WITH A 140 DEG INTERCEPT ANGLE (WHICH WE FELT WAS AN UNUSUAL INTERCEPT ANGLE). AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH WE WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR (NO FREQ WAS GIVEN). THE TWR FREQ IS NOT PUBLISHED ON THE COMMERCIAL APCH PLATE. AT THAT TIME WE CONTACTED UNICOM TO OBTAIN THE FREQ FOR TWR. WE CONTINUED THE APCH TO MDA AND CONTACTED TWR. THIS APCH WAS CONCLUDED AS A LOW APCH AND WE RPTED THE MISSED. TWR ACKNOWLEDGED AND HANDED US OFF TO SAN ANTONIO (SAT) APCH (124.45). AT THAT TIME SAT APCH ASKED US WHAT OUR INTENTIONS WERE. WE STATED THAT WE WOULD DO THE PUBLISHED HOLD. WE REQUESTED AN EXPECT FURTHER CLRNC TIME. SAT APCH ACKNOWLEDGED AND GAVE US AN EFC OF XH00. WE THEN ENTERED THE HOLD FOR 2 LAPS. AFTER THE FIRST LAP WE MADE 2 ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT SAT APCH AFTER COMPLETING OUR FIRST LAP. SAT APCH THEN CONTACTED US AT THE EFC ASKING WHAT OUR INTENTIONS WERE. WHEN WE RPTED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO AN APCH INTO SAN ANTONIO AND THEN BACK TO SGR; APCH CTL REPLIED; 'DO YOU HAVE A FLT PLAN ON FILE?' WE STATED WE WERE CURRENTLY ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. HE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE NOT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AND TOLD US TO CONTACT FLT SVC ON 122.2 OR 122.3; AND RPT BACK TO HIM; WHICH WE DID IMMEDIATELY. EVIDENTLY WE WERE NOT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN WHILE FLYING IMC. WE RPTED OUR POS TO FLT SVC (E OF SAT VOR AT 23 NM). FLT SVC INFORMED US THAT SHE COULD NOT FILE A FLT PLAN FROM OUR PRESENT POS TO SAN ANTONIO; BUT SHE COULD AND DID FILE A FLT PLAN FOR US FROM SAN ANTONIO TO SUGAR LAND. WHEN WE RPTED BACK WITH SAT APCH THE CTLR WAS WAITING FOR OUR RETURN CALL. THE CTLR GAVE US A VECTOR AND ASKED IF WE WERE READY TO COPY OUR CLRNC FROM SAT TO SGR. WE THEN FLEW THE ILS RWY 12R APCH INTO SAT; LOW APCH; EXECUTED A MISSED AND WAS GIVEN A HDG OF 030 DEGS TO INTERCEPT 081 DEGS OFF SAT VOR AND CONTINUED BACK TO SGR. THE QUESTION IS: AT WHAT POINT DID OUR IFR FLT PLAN GET CANCELED OR DROPPED? WE EVIDENTLY BECAME VFR IN THE SYS WHILE FLYING IMC AND BELIEVING THE WHOLE TIME THAT WE WERE STILL FLYING PROTECTED UNDER IFR? AT NO TIME DID WE 'CANCEL OUR FLT PLAN;' NOR WERE WE DIRECTED TO 'MAINTAIN VFR' (WHICH OF COURSE; WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE). AFTER RECONSTRUCTING THIS FLT EXPERIENCE; WE DETERMINED WE MUST HAVE BEEN DROPPED OUT OF THE IFR SYS SOMEWHERE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER WE CONTACTED BAZ TWR. NOW THAT WE ARE SAFELY POSITIONED ON THE GND AND WITH TIME TO REFLECT ON THIS SITUATION; WE CONCLUDE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PERSISTENT IN OBTAINING AN IMMEDIATE CLRNC FROM SAT APCH ONCE WE WERE NOTIFIED WE WERE NOT ON AN IFR FLT PLAN SINCE WE WERE IMC. BEING XFERRED TO FLT SVC TO OBTAIN AN IFR FLT PLAN WHILE IMC IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PROC. IT IS STILL A MYSTERY WHAT HAPPENED TO THE IFR FLT PLAN WE THOUGHT WE WERE ON WHILE FLYING THIS ROUND ROBIN TRIP. THE PROB MAY HAVE BEEN SOMEWHERE IN TRANSITIONING FROM BEING CLRED BY AUS APCH FOR THE APCH INTO BAZ AND THEN EXECUTING AND RPTING THE MISSED APCH WITH SAT APCH. SOMEWHERE THERE WAS A FAILURE TO XFER INFO WITHIN THE SYS. BELIEVING WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN IN IMC AND NOT ACTUALLY BEING ON AN IFR FLT PLAN; IS AN UNSAFE AND UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.