Narrative:

This was a local flight to learn to use a hand-held GPS that I had recently purchased. I had chosen the nearest program button on the GPS and instead of selecting agc airport in west mifflin, I erroneously chose pit a nearby airport. Another problem was that the GPS was zoomed out so that detail was not as clear as it could have been. This struck the line to pit. I was inbound for a landing at agc and in contact by radio with agc but, flying to pit. The aircraft, a C152, had 1 radio, 1 VOR and a transponder plus other flight and engine instruments. The contributing factors were a mental fixation on tracking the GPS line plus the involvement with programming it and looking for traffic. It was such a clear day that I saw an airport at 8 NM away and had the mental fixation it was the right one. At approximately 3 NM from pit I realized the error and advised agc that I was turning away from the airport. Agc advised me to contact pit approach control. I contacted pit approach control while flying away on 120 degree radial. I maintained 2300 ft MSL to remain below the class B while en route to agc. The pit controller did not have to provide vectors but said that agc may want me to contact the agc tower after landing. I did go up to the agc tower to see the controller after landing, and he advised me to call the radar room at pit. The radar controller at pit admonished me as to the possible consequences of violating the airspace. I explained to him what had happened and said that I was sorry for what had happened. The controller did not tell me that I had caused any conflicts. The closest airplane I saw was about 1 mi away. Obviously it was poor judgement to depend on the GPS to the point of exclusion of ground references in conjunction with the sectional chart and to heading considerations. After turning away from pit, I believe I made good choices as to avoiding traffic conflicts. Before beginning this flight, I checked that there were no defects reported on the airplane, however, while en route I discovered that there was a problem with the altitude encoding feature. Agc said they were receiving a primary target. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states the GPS unit is the newest, most expensive one made by the manufacturer. It has moving map, the cursor can be placed on a road and it will identify/name that road, same with a lake. He has a hand- held and does need to assure that he is plugged into the outside antenna to receive proper signals. He feels the instructional material is only fair to good and that he should have studied it more before trying it in the air. He feels it is a good idea for one to get additional training with an instructor. Of course the equipment can't do the job unless the correct information is entered.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C152 PLT LEARNING GPS PROCS PROGRAMS THE WRONG ARPT AND ENTERS CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT CLRNC. HE TURNS AWAY BUT IS ASKED TO CONTACT APCH CTLR.

Narrative: THIS WAS A LCL FLT TO LEARN TO USE A HAND-HELD GPS THAT I HAD RECENTLY PURCHASED. I HAD CHOSEN THE NEAREST PROGRAM BUTTON ON THE GPS AND INSTEAD OF SELECTING AGC ARPT IN WEST MIFFLIN, I ERRONEOUSLY CHOSE PIT A NEARBY ARPT. ANOTHER PROB WAS THAT THE GPS WAS ZOOMED OUT SO THAT DETAIL WAS NOT AS CLR AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN. THIS STRUCK THE LINE TO PIT. I WAS INBOUND FOR A LNDG AT AGC AND IN CONTACT BY RADIO WITH AGC BUT, FLYING TO PIT. THE ACFT, A C152, HAD 1 RADIO, 1 VOR AND A XPONDER PLUS OTHER FLT AND ENG INSTS. THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE A MENTAL FIXATION ON TRACKING THE GPS LINE PLUS THE INVOLVEMENT WITH PROGRAMMING IT AND LOOKING FOR TFC. IT WAS SUCH A CLR DAY THAT I SAW AN ARPT AT 8 NM AWAY AND HAD THE MENTAL FIXATION IT WAS THE RIGHT ONE. AT APPROX 3 NM FROM PIT I REALIZED THE ERROR AND ADVISED AGC THAT I WAS TURNING AWAY FROM THE ARPT. AGC ADVISED ME TO CONTACT PIT APCH CTL. I CONTACTED PIT APCH CTL WHILE FLYING AWAY ON 120 DEG RADIAL. I MAINTAINED 2300 FT MSL TO REMAIN BELOW THE CLASS B WHILE ENRTE TO AGC. THE PIT CTLR DID NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE VECTORS BUT SAID THAT AGC MAY WANT ME TO CONTACT THE AGC TWR AFTER LNDG. I DID GO UP TO THE AGC TWR TO SEE THE CTLR AFTER LNDG, AND HE ADVISED ME TO CALL THE RADAR ROOM AT PIT. THE RADAR CTLR AT PIT ADMONISHED ME AS TO THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE AIRSPACE. I EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND SAID THAT I WAS SORRY FOR WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THE CTLR DID NOT TELL ME THAT I HAD CAUSED ANY CONFLICTS. THE CLOSEST AIRPLANE I SAW WAS ABOUT 1 MI AWAY. OBVIOUSLY IT WAS POOR JUDGEMENT TO DEPEND ON THE GPS TO THE POINT OF EXCLUSION OF GND REFS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SECTIONAL CHART AND TO HDG CONSIDERATIONS. AFTER TURNING AWAY FROM PIT, I BELIEVE I MADE GOOD CHOICES AS TO AVOIDING TFC CONFLICTS. BEFORE BEGINNING THIS FLT, I CHKED THAT THERE WERE NO DEFECTS RPTED ON THE AIRPLANE, HOWEVER, WHILE ENRTE I DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A PROB WITH THE ALT ENCODING FEATURE. AGC SAID THEY WERE RECEIVING A PRIMARY TARGET. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE GPS UNIT IS THE NEWEST, MOST EXPENSIVE ONE MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER. IT HAS MOVING MAP, THE CURSOR CAN BE PLACED ON A ROAD AND IT WILL IDENT/NAME THAT ROAD, SAME WITH A LAKE. HE HAS A HAND- HELD AND DOES NEED TO ASSURE THAT HE IS PLUGGED INTO THE OUTSIDE ANTENNA TO RECEIVE PROPER SIGNALS. HE FEELS THE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL IS ONLY FAIR TO GOOD AND THAT HE SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IT MORE BEFORE TRYING IT IN THE AIR. HE FEELS IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR ONE TO GET ADDITIONAL TRAINING WITH AN INSTRUCTOR. OF COURSE THE EQUIP CAN'T DO THE JOB UNLESS THE CORRECT INFO IS ENTERED.

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.