|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : smo|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 1000|
msl bound upper : 1000
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : lax|
|Operator||general aviation : personal|
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear|
|Flight Phase||climbout : intermediate altitude|
|Route In Use||departure other|
enroute : on vectors
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : instrument|
pilot : private
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 20|
flight time total : 500
flight time type : 500
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : local|
|Qualification||controller : non radar|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
other spatial deviation
|Independent Detector||other controllera|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Consequence||faa : reviewed incident with flight crew|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
Inter Facility Coordination Failure
Going IFR small transport to pao received a lengthy clearance on the ground at smo. Just before takeoff clearance was changed to 'expect radar vectors to ventura and further clearance at that point.' the previous clearance had included 'maintain runway heading to 1000' and turn right to 250, ...' when I got in the air lax departure asked why I wasn't turning. I told them I got a new clearance to expect vectors. They said turn to 250 degrees. I turned left to 250 degrees (the shortest way). The controller said, 'didn't they say to go right to 250?' well, in fact they did, but it was never clear where the 2 clrncs started and stopped, whether approach wanted to give me a new clearance or go back to the old one, etc. In any case, this was a communications mess. Furthermore, I think it's not safe to ask someone to go back to an old clearance when flying single pilot IFR. This involves paper shuffling and eyes off the instruments. Later in the flight I suffered a vacuum failure. Had this occurred on takeoff it would have been potentially serious with all the clearance changes and distrs I might not have noticed it. Anyway, I wonder if the 2 controllers communicated with each other.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: TRACK DEVIATION BY GA SMA.
Narrative: GOING IFR SMT TO PAO RECEIVED A LENGTHY CLRNC ON THE GND AT SMO. JUST BEFORE TKOF CLRNC WAS CHANGED TO 'EXPECT RADAR VECTORS TO VENTURA AND FURTHER CLRNC AT THAT POINT.' THE PREVIOUS CLRNC HAD INCLUDED 'MAINTAIN RWY HDG TO 1000' AND TURN RIGHT TO 250, ...' WHEN I GOT IN THE AIR LAX DEP ASKED WHY I WASN'T TURNING. I TOLD THEM I GOT A NEW CLRNC TO EXPECT VECTORS. THEY SAID TURN TO 250 DEGS. I TURNED LEFT TO 250 DEGS (THE SHORTEST WAY). THE CTLR SAID, 'DIDN'T THEY SAY TO GO RIGHT TO 250?' WELL, IN FACT THEY DID, BUT IT WAS NEVER CLEAR WHERE THE 2 CLRNCS STARTED AND STOPPED, WHETHER APCH WANTED TO GIVE ME A NEW CLRNC OR GO BACK TO THE OLD ONE, ETC. IN ANY CASE, THIS WAS A COMS MESS. FURTHERMORE, I THINK IT'S NOT SAFE TO ASK SOMEONE TO GO BACK TO AN OLD CLRNC WHEN FLYING SINGLE PLT IFR. THIS INVOLVES PAPER SHUFFLING AND EYES OFF THE INSTRUMENTS. LATER IN THE FLT I SUFFERED A VACUUM FAILURE. HAD THIS OCCURRED ON TKOF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY SERIOUS WITH ALL THE CLRNC CHANGES AND DISTRS I MIGHT NOT HAVE NOTICED IT. ANYWAY, I WONDER IF THE 2 CTLRS COMMUNICATED WITH EACH OTHER.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.