Narrative:

I am a designated pilot examiner. Mr. X scheduled a flight test with me for an INS rating-aircraft. I met mr. X as agreed. As we taxied out to the runway at fxe, I asked ground control about the current situation re: practice INS approachs. I was advised that practice approachs were available at the moment, but might be stopped if traffic became heavy. It was suggested that we do any approachs planned at fxe first if we wanted to be confident of getting them done. As the applicant was completing the runup, the ground controller called us and asked if we would like to do our flight IFR. Considering the circumstances of radar problems, and that it appeared that some clouds were moving in at about 2000', I said 'yes.' normally I do not conduct INS flight tests under fir, but I decided to do it this time because of the problems I had been having during the preceding days, and I wanted to complete the test west/O further delaying the applicant or myself. After takeoff, fxe tower handed us off to mia approach who advised us that the VOR approach at pmp was not available. He asked if we would like to go to opf instead for a VOR approach there. I responded that we would, since this was a flight test and I needed to do a VOR approach somewhere. The mia approach controller then cleared us to opf via radar vectors. Mia approach controller asked if we wanted to perform a full VOR approach or a straight-in VOR approach. I told the applicant that he could do whichever he wanted, and he told the controller that we would conduct the straight-in approach. As we neared the mia VOR, we were given a heading of 140 degrees to intercept the final approach course (108 degrees), and were cleared for the VOR approach at 9o9pf. Mr. X turned the aircraft to a heading of 140 degrees and continued. As we turned I covered the attitude indicator and heading indicator to simulate a partial panel approach, as required by the practical test standards for the INS flight test. Moments later, we were handed off to opf tower by mia approach. As we crossed the mia VOR, the course deviation indicator indicated that we should fly to the right to intercept the inbound course. Mr. X's heading had been approximately 140 degrees, but now he began a turn to the right. It appeared to me that he was attempting to correct to return to the inbound course, so I said nothing and continued to observe. As he turned, he glanced down at his approach plates which were in his lap. A few seconds passed and mr. X was continuing to turn, but now the rate of turn was increasing and became more than standard rate. Mr. X had performed satisfactorily and had adjusted to several changes in plan west/O any apparent difficulty. I had no reason to believe that he was losing control of the situation. I knew that he intended to make a straight-in approach, rather than to complete a procedure turn, because that was what he had requested. The magnetic compass became unreliable due to the steepening angle of bank. I estimate that we had turned about 90 degrees. I took control of the aircraft and began a left turn back to the east. I do not know exactly what our actual heading was at that time. I contacted opf tower and advised them that we were declaring missed approach. Opf tower asked me to repeat. I told them that we were declaring a missed approach and turning to 090 degrees. I also removed the covers from the attitude and heading indicators. Opf tower acknowledged and told us to contact mia approach control again. Mia acknowledged and asked what our heading was. I responded that it was 090 degrees. Approach controller then instructed us to turn right immediately, to 180 degrees, and advised that we had traffic at 12 O'clock.. I repeated the heading and told him that we could not see the traffic because we were in the clouds. Mr. X told me that he had become disorientated when he looked back up from his approach plates and had been trying to get reoriented. I told mia approach that we would like to return to fxe, and the controller then cleared us to fxe via radar vectors. The controller asked us to call the mia TRACON when we landed at fxe. I called and spoke to the supervisor at mia TRACON. He asked what had happened, and if we had been making a full approach rather than the straight-in approach. Then he told me that there had been an aircraft behind us and minimum sep may not have been maintained. He also asked if I had known there was another aircraft behind us. I had heard him talking to another aircraft, and I did know they were inbound to opf. About 2 hours later he did call back and during that conversation he indicated that minimum sep had not been maintained. I believe that this situation could also be avoided by not conducting INS flight tests under actual IFR flight plans or in IMC conditions. I know I will never conduct a flight test on an IFR flight plan again, regardless.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DESIGNATED FLT EXAMINER GIVING FLT TEST FOR INS RATING IN IMC PRACTICES PARTIAL PANEL. STUDENT BECOMES DISORIENTED AND TURNS TOWARD ACFT ON APCH BEHIND THEM. SEPARATION LOST.

Narrative: I AM A DESIGNATED PLT EXAMINER. MR. X SCHEDULED A FLT TEST WITH ME FOR AN INS RATING-ACFT. I MET MR. X AS AGREED. AS WE TAXIED OUT TO THE RWY AT FXE, I ASKED GND CTL ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION RE: PRACTICE INS APCHS. I WAS ADVISED THAT PRACTICE APCHS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT, BUT MIGHT BE STOPPED IF TFC BECAME HVY. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE DO ANY APCHS PLANNED AT FXE FIRST IF WE WANTED TO BE CONFIDENT OF GETTING THEM DONE. AS THE APPLICANT WAS COMPLETING THE RUNUP, THE GND CTLR CALLED US AND ASKED IF WE WOULD LIKE TO DO OUR FLT IFR. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF RADAR PROBS, AND THAT IT APPEARED THAT SOME CLOUDS WERE MOVING IN AT ABOUT 2000', I SAID 'YES.' NORMALLY I DO NOT CONDUCT INS FLT TESTS UNDER FIR, BUT I DECIDED TO DO IT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE PROBS I HAD BEEN HAVING DURING THE PRECEDING DAYS, AND I WANTED TO COMPLETE THE TEST W/O FURTHER DELAYING THE APPLICANT OR MYSELF. AFTER TKOF, FXE TWR HANDED US OFF TO MIA APCH WHO ADVISED US THAT THE VOR APCH AT PMP WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HE ASKED IF WE WOULD LIKE TO GO TO OPF INSTEAD FOR A VOR APCH THERE. I RESPONDED THAT WE WOULD, SINCE THIS WAS A FLT TEST AND I NEEDED TO DO A VOR APCH SOMEWHERE. THE MIA APCH CTLR THEN CLRED US TO OPF VIA RADAR VECTORS. MIA APCH CTLR ASKED IF WE WANTED TO PERFORM A FULL VOR APCH OR A STRAIGHT-IN VOR APCH. I TOLD THE APPLICANT THAT HE COULD DO WHICHEVER HE WANTED, AND HE TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE WOULD CONDUCT THE STRAIGHT-IN APCH. AS WE NEARED THE MIA VOR, WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 140 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE (108 DEGS), AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VOR APCH AT 9O9PF. MR. X TURNED THE ACFT TO A HDG OF 140 DEGS AND CONTINUED. AS WE TURNED I COVERED THE ATTITUDE INDICATOR AND HDG INDICATOR TO SIMULATE A PARTIAL PANEL APCH, AS REQUIRED BY THE PRACTICAL TEST STANDARDS FOR THE INS FLT TEST. MOMENTS LATER, WE WERE HANDED OFF TO OPF TWR BY MIA APCH. AS WE CROSSED THE MIA VOR, THE COURSE DEVIATION INDICATOR INDICATED THAT WE SHOULD FLY TO THE RIGHT TO INTERCEPT THE INBND COURSE. MR. X'S HDG HAD BEEN APPROX 140 DEGS, BUT NOW HE BEGAN A TURN TO THE RIGHT. IT APPEARED TO ME THAT HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT TO RETURN TO THE INBND COURSE, SO I SAID NOTHING AND CONTINUED TO OBSERVE. AS HE TURNED, HE GLANCED DOWN AT HIS APCH PLATES WHICH WERE IN HIS LAP. A FEW SECS PASSED AND MR. X WAS CONTINUING TO TURN, BUT NOW THE RATE OF TURN WAS INCREASING AND BECAME MORE THAN STANDARD RATE. MR. X HAD PERFORMED SATISFACTORILY AND HAD ADJUSTED TO SEVERAL CHANGES IN PLAN W/O ANY APPARENT DIFFICULTY. I HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS LOSING CTL OF THE SITUATION. I KNEW THAT HE INTENDED TO MAKE A STRAIGHT-IN APCH, RATHER THAN TO COMPLETE A PROC TURN, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT HE HAD REQUESTED. THE MAGNETIC COMPASS BECAME UNRELIABLE DUE TO THE STEEPENING ANGLE OF BANK. I ESTIMATE THAT WE HAD TURNED ABOUT 90 DEGS. I TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT AND BEGAN A LEFT TURN BACK TO THE E. I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT OUR ACTUAL HDG WAS AT THAT TIME. I CONTACTED OPF TWR AND ADVISED THEM THAT WE WERE DECLARING MISSED APCH. OPF TWR ASKED ME TO REPEAT. I TOLD THEM THAT WE WERE DECLARING A MISSED APCH AND TURNING TO 090 DEGS. I ALSO REMOVED THE COVERS FROM THE ATTITUDE AND HDG INDICATORS. OPF TWR ACKNOWLEDGED AND TOLD US TO CONTACT MIA APCH CTL AGAIN. MIA ACKNOWLEDGED AND ASKED WHAT OUR HDG WAS. I RESPONDED THAT IT WAS 090 DEGS. APCH CTLR THEN INSTRUCTED US TO TURN RIGHT IMMEDIATELY, TO 180 DEGS, AND ADVISED THAT WE HAD TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK.. I REPEATED THE HDG AND TOLD HIM THAT WE COULD NOT SEE THE TFC BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE CLOUDS. MR. X TOLD ME THAT HE HAD BECOME DISORIENTATED WHEN HE LOOKED BACK UP FROM HIS APCH PLATES AND HAD BEEN TRYING TO GET REORIENTED. I TOLD MIA APCH THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RETURN TO FXE, AND THE CTLR THEN CLRED US TO FXE VIA RADAR VECTORS. THE CTLR ASKED US TO CALL THE MIA TRACON WHEN WE LANDED AT FXE. I CALLED AND SPOKE TO THE SUPVR AT MIA TRACON. HE ASKED WHAT HAD HAPPENED, AND IF WE HAD BEEN MAKING A FULL APCH RATHER THAN THE STRAIGHT-IN APCH. THEN HE TOLD ME THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ACFT BEHIND US AND MINIMUM SEP MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. HE ALSO ASKED IF I HAD KNOWN THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT BEHIND US. I HAD HEARD HIM TALKING TO ANOTHER ACFT, AND I DID KNOW THEY WERE INBND TO OPF. ABOUT 2 HRS LATER HE DID CALL BACK AND DURING THAT CONVERSATION HE INDICATED THAT MINIMUM SEP HAD NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. I BELIEVE THAT THIS SITUATION COULD ALSO BE AVOIDED BY NOT CONDUCTING INS FLT TESTS UNDER ACTUAL IFR FLT PLANS OR IN IMC CONDITIONS. I KNOW I WILL NEVER CONDUCT A FLT TEST ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AGAIN, REGARDLESS.

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.