Narrative:

On an IFR (in VMC conditions) flight plan; I filed the routing to be along the coastal airways. I have IFR GPS and so requested 'direct' as much as possible. The clearance was modified slightly before departure; but basically retained the inland coastal route. After takeoff the routing was again slightly modified with vectors to the coastal route. But then I received a new clearance to santa catalina island VOR; and having never been that way before; I accepted thinking that the VOR was either on the mainland; or close to it. Instead; the route took me over catalina island. Even though we were at 9000 ft MSL; it would have been close call to be able to glide to shore; or back to the island airport; should the engine have sputtered. My error was made at a time of high cockpit workload following departure and having just received the first modified clearance. I also thought that the clearance would again be modified to bring us back to shore; as that was the pattern (modifications of original clearance) that was developing. As I passed over catalina; TRACON asked if I would like to descend to lower altitude; which I declined; advising I wanted to be closer to shore before doing so. No problem with ATC about that. My issue is that ATC knew I as a single engine aircraft; and had filed for a coastal route; yet took me 24 miles out to sea without ever asking if we had flotation gear; flares; etc. Even though we has 50+ mile visibility and no clouds below us; I was very uncomfortable that far out to sea. I suggest that ATC not be allowed to vector/clear single engines aircraft out that far to sea without first advising that it will be taking the flight far from land and asking if the aircraft is so equipped for emergency water landing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 pilot accepted a clearance which routed his aircraft off shore over SXC because he did not realize that it was so far from land. His aircraft was not properly equipped for overwater operations.

Narrative: On an IFR (in VMC conditions) flight plan; I filed the routing to be along the coastal airways. I have IFR GPS and so requested 'direct' as much as possible. The clearance was modified slightly before departure; but basically retained the inland coastal route. After takeoff the routing was again slightly modified with vectors to the coastal route. But then I received a new clearance to Santa Catalina Island VOR; and having never been that way before; I accepted thinking that the VOR was either on the mainland; or close to it. Instead; the route took me over Catalina Island. Even though we were at 9000 FT MSL; it would have been close call to be able to glide to shore; or back to the Island airport; should the engine have sputtered. My error was made at a time of high cockpit workload following departure and having just received the first modified clearance. I also thought that the clearance would again be modified to bring us back to shore; as that was the pattern (modifications of original clearance) that was developing. As I passed over Catalina; TRACON asked if I would like to descend to lower altitude; which I declined; advising I wanted to be closer to shore before doing so. No problem with ATC about that. My issue is that ATC knew I as a single engine aircraft; and had filed for a coastal route; yet took me 24 miles out to sea without ever asking if we had flotation gear; flares; etc. Even though we has 50+ mile visibility and no clouds below us; I was very uncomfortable that far out to sea. I suggest that ATC not be allowed to vector/clear single engines aircraft out that far to sea without first advising that it will be taking the flight far from land and asking if the aircraft is so equipped for emergency water landing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.