Instructor pilot and student neglected to report the OM, and perceive they were instructed to go around for purely punitive disciplinary reasons. Non adherence to ATC clearance instruction.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	314640
Time
Date	199508
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : owb
State Reference	KY
Altitude	agl bound lower : 500 agl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : owb tower : owb
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : missed approach
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : first officer instruction : instructor oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 25 flight time total : 3200 flight time type : 80
ASRS Report	314640
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew faa : assigned or threatened penalties
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

Our aircraft was on an instrument training flight and performing a practice ILS approach to runway 36 at owb. Student was prompted to follow 5 T's (turn time twist throttle talk) before FAF. Student had problem with GS (throttle task) and we both failed to report the marker inbound until near the MM. The tower got its call in to us (before we could call) and instructed our aircraft to go around. No other traffic was seen by us in the air at the time of the event. Controller (supervisor) asked me to call him. He stated violation (not reporting fix) and also said that we had done the same thing the day before. Both student and I were unaware of previous event. Corrective action: we were handed off by evansville approach to owensboro tower. It is assumed that interfacility (telephone) coordination alerted the tower of our position on the approach. Tower supervisor stated that they had no BRITE display. A position request to us by the tower might have helped. If instructors and controllers can't be cooperative, rather than combative, our ATC system might crash!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT AND STUDENT NEGLECTED TO RPT THE OM, AND PERCEIVE THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO GAR FOR PURELY PUNITIVE DISCIPLINARY REASONS. NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC INSTRUCTION.

Narrative: OUR ACFT WAS ON AN INST TRAINING FLT AND PERFORMING A PRACTICE ILS APCH TO RWY 36 AT OWB. STUDENT WAS PROMPTED TO FOLLOW 5 T'S (TURN TIME TWIST THROTTLE TALK) BEFORE FAF. STUDENT HAD PROB WITH GS (THROTTLE TASK) AND WE BOTH FAILED TO RPT THE MARKER INBOUND UNTIL NEAR THE MM. THE TWR GOT ITS CALL IN TO US (BEFORE WE COULD CALL) AND INSTRUCTED OUR ACFT TO GAR. NO OTHER TFC WAS SEEN BY US IN THE AIR AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT. CTLR (SUPVR) ASKED ME TO CALL HIM. HE STATED VIOLATION (NOT RPTING FIX) AND ALSO SAID THAT WE HAD DONE THE SAME THING THE DAY BEFORE. BOTH STUDENT AND I WERE UNAWARE OF PREVIOUS EVENT. CORRECTIVE ACTION: WE WERE HANDED OFF BY EVANSVILLE APCH TO OWENSBORO TWR. IT IS ASSUMED THAT INTERFAC (TELEPHONE) COORD ALERTED THE TWR OF OUR POS ON THE APCH. TWR SUPVR STATED THAT THEY HAD NO BRITE DISPLAY. A POS REQUEST TO US BY THE TWR MIGHT HAVE HELPED. IF INSTRUCTORS AND CTLRS CAN'T BE COOPERATIVE, RATHER THAN COMBATIVE, OUR ATC SYS MIGHT CRASH!

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.