 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Small aircraft pilot is confused regarding which approach is in use. Flies wrong VOR approach after radar vectored. Wrong VOR approach used.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 338265 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199606 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : iso |
| State Reference | NC |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 1800 msl bound upper : 1800 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Mixed |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : gsb |
| Operator | general aviation : personal |
| Make Model Name | PA-24 Comanche |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 600 flight time type : 300 |
| ASRS Report | 338265 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : local |
| Qualification | controller : non radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : became reoriented flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Incident description: while on approach to iso, under radar vectors, the aircraft was temporarily flown in the path shown below at 1800 ft MSL. Why? I thought I was doing VOR 5, the controllers thought I was doing VOR 23. Total loss of positional awareness ensued. Contributing factors: fatigue, both on pilot's part and on the controller's. Unexpected unavailability of ILS 5 approach -- NOTAMS indicated only that the approach lights were out. Failure of PIC to clarify which approach was being flown. Iso has both a VOR 5 and a VOR 23. The controller assumed VOR 23 because the overall direction of flight was southwest. The pilot assumed VOR 5 because he was expecting ILS 5 until belatedly learning of the lack of ILS. Recommendation: late at night when everyone is tired use the full approach whenever possible. It takes longer, but the pilot has better positional awareness during the full approach than during vectors to final. Controllers should suggest this late at night when there is minimal traffic.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SMA PLT IS CONFUSED REGARDING WHICH APCH IS IN USE. FLIES WRONG VOR APCH AFTER RADAR VECTORED. WRONG VOR APCH USED.
Narrative: INCIDENT DESCRIPTION: WHILE ON APCH TO ISO, UNDER RADAR VECTORS, THE ACFT WAS TEMPORARILY FLOWN IN THE PATH SHOWN BELOW AT 1800 FT MSL. WHY? I THOUGHT I WAS DOING VOR 5, THE CTLRS THOUGHT I WAS DOING VOR 23. TOTAL LOSS OF POSITIONAL AWARENESS ENSUED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: FATIGUE, BOTH ON PLT'S PART AND ON THE CTLR'S. UNEXPECTED UNAVAILABILITY OF ILS 5 APCH -- NOTAMS INDICATED ONLY THAT THE APCH LIGHTS WERE OUT. FAILURE OF PIC TO CLARIFY WHICH APCH WAS BEING FLOWN. ISO HAS BOTH A VOR 5 AND A VOR 23. THE CTLR ASSUMED VOR 23 BECAUSE THE OVERALL DIRECTION OF FLT WAS SW. THE PLT ASSUMED VOR 5 BECAUSE HE WAS EXPECTING ILS 5 UNTIL BELATEDLY LEARNING OF THE LACK OF ILS. RECOMMENDATION: LATE AT NIGHT WHEN EVERYONE IS TIRED USE THE FULL APCH WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IT TAKES LONGER, BUT THE PLT HAS BETTER POSITIONAL AWARENESS DURING THE FULL APCH THAN DURING VECTORS TO FINAL. CTLRS SHOULD SUGGEST THIS LATE AT NIGHT WHEN THERE IS MINIMAL TFC.
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.