Altitude deviation.

Attributes
ACN	293335
Time
Date	199501
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : pih
State Reference	ID
Altitude	msl bound lower : 7000 msl bound upper : 8000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : lax
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 3900 flight time type : 50
ASRS Report	293335
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : crossing restriction not met other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other

Narrative:

Cruising in IMC with some ground contact on V269 twf-pih at 7000 ft. Just before pih I was cleared for pih ILS 21 approach. The transition from pih to the LOM is specified for 8000 ft MSL, 8 mi on the R030. In my brief of the approach, I missed the 8000 ft altitude for the transition, and maintained 7000 ft, rather than climbing for the 8 mi segment. I was not concerned with my altitude, since the transition is contained in an airway with a 7000 ft MEA. Terrain clearance was not a problem. This was my fault for not briefing the transition carefully, but ATC could include a climb to 8000 ft before pih and my approach clearance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter feels the mistake he made was because of a mindset that he knew the terrain and was on airways that already met the required MEA. He was asked if the note requiring aircraft to climb to a higher altitude than cruising would be of help or if the note on the approach plate was plainly seen. He felt the notation on the approach plate was very adequate and it wouldn't be necessary to change anything. His own mind was the reason the error occurred.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV.

Narrative: CRUISING IN IMC WITH SOME GND CONTACT ON V269 TWF-PIH AT 7000 FT. JUST BEFORE PIH I WAS CLRED FOR PIH ILS 21 APCH. THE TRANSITION FROM PIH TO THE LOM IS SPECIFIED FOR 8000 FT MSL, 8 MI ON THE R030. IN MY BRIEF OF THE APCH, I MISSED THE 8000 FT ALT FOR THE TRANSITION, AND MAINTAINED 7000 FT, RATHER THAN CLBING FOR THE 8 MI SEGMENT. I WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH MY ALT, SINCE THE TRANSITION IS CONTAINED IN AN AIRWAY WITH A 7000 FT MEA. TERRAIN CLRNC WAS NOT A PROB. THIS WAS MY FAULT FOR NOT BRIEFING THE TRANSITION CAREFULLY, BUT ATC COULD INCLUDE A CLB TO 8000 FT BEFORE PIH AND MY APCH CLRNC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR FEELS THE MISTAKE HE MADE WAS BECAUSE OF A MINDSET THAT HE KNEW THE TERRAIN AND WAS ON AIRWAYS THAT ALREADY MET THE REQUIRED MEA. HE WAS ASKED IF THE NOTE REQUIRING ACFT TO CLB TO A HIGHER ALT THAN CRUISING WOULD BE OF HELP OR IF THE NOTE ON THE APCH PLATE WAS PLAINLY SEEN. HE FELT THE NOTATION ON THE APCH PLATE WAS VERY ADEQUATE AND IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO CHANGE ANYTHING. HIS OWN MIND WAS THE REASON THE ERROR OCCURRED.

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.