Bless me Father for I have sinned

[drgwentzel]

Flyers,

I thought I would confess a situation that happened to me recently and maybe some of you can learn from it.

Bless me J. Randolph Babbitt for I have sinned; it has been 6 ILS's and 2 NASA reports since my last confession.

I was receiving flight instruction for my CFII rating. I was the pilot flying from the right seat and I was under the hood.

My instructor and I departed our home airport to practice a non-precision approach. I was receiving vectors from my instructor as he was guiding me Northwest to the VOR. He then noticed possible bad weather North of the fix and decided to vector me onto the approach course early. When he “cleared” me for the approach I intercepted the final approach course and he instructed me to fly the published approach to minimums from that position which I dutifully did.

When we landed and were debriefing an airport employee advised me that a supervisor from a local tower called the FBO and asked if the pilot flying the VOR-A approach could call them. I denied at first that we violated any airspace and felt so since I was flying with a highly experienced instructor (35,000 hours, a commercial heavy iron pilot and a retired FAA examiner) and even more so because I had a GPS on the yoke.

I began to have doubts of my innocence when I discerned the sheepish look on my instructor's face . After we concluded our lesson I reviewed my GPS track and indeed we clipped the outside of the near-by class D airspace.

With my tail between my legs , I immediately called the provided number, but a shift change gave me a supervisor who had no idea what I was talking about. He assured me I was "not in trouble” and to be more careful in the future.

Lessons learned are not to depend on an instructor, regardless of experience, to keep you out of controlled airspace in which you are not permitted to be operating. That goes for a lot of things, like looking for traffic and the like. Further, I had a portable GPS in front of me and felt invincible to such blunders. But I soon realized that it was set to an IFR map mode which does not depict Class B, C or D airspace. The lesson learned here is, if you’re VFR keep on a VFR map. Lastly, I found myself intimidated by my instructor’s experience and although I thought to call approach, I held my tongue in what I thought was respect for his seniority and superiority.

As we discuss this more in this thread I will expand on this last statement more. At the moment it’s time for bed. :wink2:

Gene

 

[wabower]

You just had a breakthrough learning experience regarding our natural tendency to defer to authority or seniority or whatever you call it, because we have been taught to do. I learned that same lesson when I was forced to retrain on a maneuver during a type ride because the copilot for the ride was the head of the department who had volunteered to help out because one of the right-seaters had failed to show up.

The results were that he blew the heading to the first fix on the Carnustie departure from JFK, and rather than tell him to recheck while I flew the plane, I instead peaked at his chart to be sure I was right. As I leveled at 2k, I didn't pull the powe levers quickly enough to avoid exceeding 250, and even though I reacted quickly and correctly, the guy who was adminstering the ride was being observed by the fed so I got pink slip and did it again, although it wasn't my mistake that caused the chain of events.

When you're in charge, you gotta make the calls because they're on you either way. And now you know.

Flyers,

I thought I would confess a situation that happened to me recently and maybe some of you can learn from it.

Bless me J. Randolph Babbitt for I have sinned; it has been 6 ILS's and 2 NASA reports since my last confession.

I was receiving flight instruction for my CFII rating. I was the pilot flying from the right seat and I was under the hood.

My instructor and I departed our home airport to practice a non-precision approach. I was receiving vectors from my instructor as he was guiding me Northwest to the VOR. He then noticed possible bad weather North of the fix and decided to vector me onto the approach course early. When he “cleared” me for the approach I intercepted the final approach course and he instructed me to fly the published approach to minimums from that position which I dutifully did.

When we landed and were debriefing an airport employee advised me that a supervisor from a local tower called the FBO and asked if the pilot flying the VOR-A approach could call them. I denied at first that we violated any airspace and felt so since I was flying with a highly experienced instructor (35,000 hours, a commercial heavy iron pilot and a retired FAA examiner) and even more so because I had a GPS on the yoke.

I began to have doubts of my innocence when I discerned the sheepish look on my instructor's face . After we concluded our lesson I reviewed my GPS track and indeed we clipped the outside of the near-by class D airspace.

With my tail between my legs , I immediately called the provided number, but a shift change gave me a supervisor who had no idea what I was talking about. He assured me I was "not in trouble” and to be more careful in the future.

Lessons learned are not to depend on an instructor, regardless of experience, to keep you out of controlled airspace in which you are not permitted to be operating. That goes for a lot of things, like looking for traffic and the like. Further, I had a portable GPS in front of me and felt invincible to such blunders. But I soon realized that it was set to an IFR map mode which does not depict Class B, C or D airspace. The lesson learned here is, if you’re VFR keep on a VFR map. Lastly, I found myself intimidated by my instructor’s experience and although I thought to call approach, I held my tongue in what I thought was respect for his seniority and superiority.

As we discuss this more in this thread I will expand on this last statement more. At the moment it’s time for bed. :wink2:

Gene

 

[saracelica]

Ah a clipping of a Class D airspace. Been there, done that. Was on a solo xc (my second one) and it was turbulant. To this day I still stick with I was Aviating, navigating and took communicating last. Just stepped into the Class D and was talking to them. As I was leaving the space they said I had "pilot deviation". After a phone call with the tower (my CFII made the conference call with me) and then a call from a FSDO I seem to be in the clear...no nasty gram. (Was kind of hoping to get one) but we filled out that NASA form so maybe it was my *get out of jail free*. I'll be sure to be watching the GPS alot more carefully next time. (And well have my radio tuned in well before hand.)

 

[dennyleeb]

I don't see any point in practicing IFR while not in the system. If you were I don't see where there would have been a problem.

 

[EdFred]

The big sin here is using the oversized font in your post.

 

[EdFred]

I don't see any point in practicing IFR while not in the system. If you were I don't see where there would have been a problem.

If I'm in month 7 of my "currency" and my safety pilot isn't instrument rated, how do you suggest we get in the IFR system?

 

[Ted]

If I'm in month 7 of my "currency" and my safety pilot isn't instrument rated, how do you suggest we get in the IFR system?

I wouldn't, but I would suggest talking to ATC and requesting the practice approaches with them - which you can do VFR.

However, I don't think that was the case in this instance, especially since our sinning friend is training for his CFII. Since he also flies in a very busy, congested airspace, he would have been wise to get in the system (which I would expect that either he or his instructor would be able to do). Even still, they could have attempted to request practice approaches VFR.

A lesson well-learned, and that he can then use to help his future students. Seems his 35,000 hour instructor (hopefully) learned something, too. Wayne is right - deferring to the high-time person in a theoretical position of authority isn't a good idea in a number of cases. Specifically, when they are wrong.

 

[Jaybird180]

So let's say hypothetically there was to be an enforcement action (not wishing one), who's certificate would this be on. Just asking because I'm not clear on this point.

 

[dennyleeb]

If I'm in month 7 of my "currency" and my safety pilot isn't instrument rated, how do you suggest we get in the IFR system?

I would get IFR rated safety pilot(or instructor) or do it in the 6th month. Just me

 

[EdFred]

So let's say hypothetically there was to be an enforcement action (not wishing one), who's certificate would this be on. Just asking because I'm not clear on this point.

Probably both.

 

[EdFred]

I would get IFR rated safety pilot(or instructor) or do it in the 6th month. Just me

Don't have any near me that fly for free. But I'm not as awesome as you.

 

[dennyleeb]

Don't have any near me that fly for free. But I'm not as awesome as you.

so I guess you should plan ahead a little and do it in the 6th month

 

[EdFred]

so I guess you should plan ahead a little and do it in the 6th month

Weather and schedule often conflicts with that. Plus, if I'm not going anywhere, there's no pressing need. I've done hundreds of practice approaches while not under IFR and never once had an issue. I guess I just don't need the babysitting others do.

 

[Fearless Tower]

so I guess you should plan ahead a little and do it in the 6th month

Glad your life is so flexible, Denny.

For some of us, it isn't possible, even with planning ahead. I routinely have to go outside of 6 months (when you deploy for 7 months, there just isn't any other way).

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't see any point in practicing IFR while not in the system. If you were I don't see where there would have been a problem.

In lots of places ATC is too busy for practice approaches, or you may not want to clog up the system at non-towered fields (meaning other "real" IFR traffic has to hold while you practice). You might be doing your training in an airplane not certified for IFR, too.

LOTS of reasons to practice IFR procedures while operating under VFR.

 

[dennyleeb]

In lots of places ATC is too busy for practice approaches, or you may not want to clog up the system at non-towered fields (meaning other "real" IFR traffic has to hold while you practice). You might be doing your training in an airplane not certified for IFR, too.

LOTS of reasons to practice IFR procedures while operating under VFR.

Just because your VFR does not mean you can't be in the system. I can't think of any reason I would not be in the system.

if you explain to them what you are doing and you are VFR and request advisories I still think you would be better off, at least they know what you are doing and I don't see why it would not help them if they were busy not hurt them (not all controllers are created equally)

 

[AdamZ]

Good lesson and thanks for sharing. When I practiced the VOR 26 into VAY or the VOR-A into N14 My CFII always contacted MaGuire to get a clearance. IIRC the
VOR-A into N14 takes you right through the Delta at MaGuire.

 

[dennyleeb]

Glad your life is so flexible, Denny.

For some of us, it isn't possible, even with planning ahead. I routinely have to go outside of 6 months (when you deploy for 7 months, there just isn't any other way).

It is hard working 4 days a week I admit it. On another note if I had not flown for 7 months I would want to go up with instructor anyway the first few times.

I am not a CFII. I am not telling you my way is the only way. However in this case I think my approach would have helped keep him and the instructor out of any possible trouble. I am pretty much always in the system.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

IIRC the
VOR-A into N14 takes you right through the Delta at MaGuire.

It has been a while but I trained out of N14, I don't recall that being the case but we always did contact McGuire so perhaps.

 

[nosehair]

So let's say hypothetically there was to be an enforcement action (not wishing one), who's certificate would this be on. Just asking because I'm not clear on this point.

In your statement, you said this:

My instructor and I departed our home airport to practice a non-precision approach. I was receiving vectors from my instructor as he was guiding me Northwest to the VOR. He then noticed possible bad weather North of the fix and decided to vector me onto the approach course early. When he “cleared” me for the approach I intercepted the final approach course and he instructed me to fly the published approach to minimums from that position which I dutifully did.

Your instructor gave specific directions that caused a violation. He is held responsible.
Each case is judged on it's own merit. There is no one-size-fits-all ruling when both pilots are logging PIC.

 

[ajstoner21]

I have mixed feelings about what to respond with.

I have been with my CFII being vectored around without paying too close attention how close I was to various class D airspace. Since he was the instructor, I would expect him to not vector me into airspace. Although, as the pilot, I know I should be aware of everything like that. As the pilot flying, I would feel responsible, as I should, but I would say its a jerk move, accident or not, on the instructor doing the vectoring.

And, talking to a center/approach controller while VFR doesn't gaurantee a hand off to any towers. So, being "in the system" with flight following might help, but its no gaurantee.

Although while with my CFII, I got scolded once while practicing an ILS while talking to approach, who forgot about me (or just got too loaded with work?), and the tower didn't like where I called them at.

 

[Henning]

This is why glass is a wonderful thing. Airspace? You know exactly where you are a moments glance. No more transferring a fix onto a chart in your lap.

 

[DavidWhite]

This is why glass is a wonderful thing. Airspace? You know exactly where you are a moments glance. No more transferring a fix onto a chart in your lap.

Or a GPS......

 

[Henning]

Or a GPS......

Without the "glass" part, you're still taking lat longs to a chart to see where you are.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Without the "glass" part, you're still taking lat longs to a chart to see where you are.

You're working with some old equipment. Handhelds have shown airspace for some time and you sometimes get TFRs if you get one with XM. 7 years or so back, I flew a C-172 with a KLN-92 (I think that was the munber) panel mount. Just a tiny display under the steam guages but it still had a tiny map and it gave a warning when we entered Philadelphia airspace.

 

[EdFred]

Without the "glass" part, you're still taking lat longs to a chart to see where you are.

x96 series is "glass" ? Heck, even my Dad's Lowrance shows airspace.

 

[Everskyward]

Lessons learned are not to depend on an instructor, regardless of experience, to keep you out of controlled airspace in which you are not permitted to be operating.

I learned another lesson fairly early on, that a CFI may not be able to save the day for you if you mishandle the airplane. I was only a little past getting my private and was learning how to do wheel landings in a Citabria when I got a little too enthusiastic about keeping the nose down. I bounced, said I was going around and had a situation somewhat like Kimberley experienced when we couldn't climb more than a few hundred feet, at sea level because I had unknowingly hit the prop.

 

[wsuffa]

Glad your life is so flexible, Denny.

For some of us, it isn't possible, even with planning ahead. I routinely have to go outside of 6 months (when you deploy for 7 months, there just isn't any other way).

Some of us like to do regular IPCs regardless of logbook currency. Beneficial for polishing skills (esp. partial panel), beneficial for insurance.

In lots of places ATC is too busy for practice approaches, or you may not want to clog up the system at non-towered fields (meaning other "real" IFR traffic has to hold while you practice). You might be doing your training in an airplane not certified for IFR, too.

LOTS of reasons to practice IFR procedures while operating under VFR.

True that. I heard Potomac Approach admonish a VFR pilot on Saturday as the VFR pilot requested flight-following as they were leaving the SFRA off of Manassas. Potomac instructed him to "file a VFR flight plan next time" because it would "make it easier for all". (by his comments, the other pilot seemed as confused as I was since 1) there already was an SFRA plan filed, 2) VFR plans don't normally go to ATC, 3) vFR shouldn't file IFR plans for flight following, and 4) the normal practice off HEF is to request FF when contacting Potomac on the handoff from HEF. Other pilot concluded that he ought to request FF in the comments section of the flight plan).

 

[nosehair]

As the pilot flying, I would feel responsible, as I should, but I would say its a jerk move, accident or not, on the instructor doing the vectoring.

Here's how it works:

There can only be one PIC - actual PIC. As the pilot flying with a PIC instructor, you are logging PIC under the 61.51 sole manipulator rule, but you are not PIC. That is, if your instructor (or safety pilot) is the PIC.

If your instructor is NOT the PIC, which he could be; instructing & not the PIC, if you are qualified to act as PIC, then he would not be the responsible PIC and you would be.

Having said that, not all cases are black & white and the FAA has found both parties guilty of some violations, when both are found to have been partly responsible.

 

[Henning]

You're working with some old equipment. Handhelds have shown airspace for some time and you sometimes get TFRs if you get one with XM. 7 years or so back, I flew a C-172 with a KLN-92 (I think that was the munber) panel mount. Just a tiny display under the steam guages but it still had a tiny map and it gave a warning when we entered Philadelphia airspace.

Your hand held is still "glass", so is the screen on that KLN-94 (is more likely the number). You are receiving pictorial information, not some numbers, or a needle deflection to tune in on to get an LOP (line of position in this context, not lean of peak). Leave anything with a pictorial screen on it out of the plane. Just because it's not certified for installation or use for IFR navigation does not make it not Glass.

 

[Henning]

x96 series is "glass" ? Heck, even my Dad's Lowrance shows airspace.

When you're looking at a picture on a screen, it's "glass".

 

[EdFred]

When I think glass, I think Aspen, G600, G1000, Avidyne packages, etc... Not a handheld. My phone will even give me position on a chart, and don't consider that glass.

 

[Henning]

When I think glass, I think Aspen, G600, G1000, Avidyne packages, etc... Not a handheld. My phone will even give me position on a chart, and don't consider that glass.

What are you looking at in any of them? You are looking at a piece of glass, but the real differentiators between "Glass" and "Steam" is the representation of information, and where the processing of raw data to required information gets done. When I started flying, all you had available a VOR and an ADF giving you LOPs that you had to transfer to a paper chart. Now you have a GPS unit that will fix lines of position automatically in an electronic format chart which is displayed on glass rather than paper.

So you see, there are really two separate issues related to glass. There is "Glass vs Steam" in the representation of attitude and tactical control, and "Glass vs Paper" in the representation of navigation and strategic control.

 

[EdFred]

What are you looking at in any of them? You are looking at a piece of glass, but the real differentiators between "Glass" and "Steam" is the representation of information, and where the processing of raw data to required information gets done. When I started flying, all you had available a VOR and an ADF giving you LOPs that you had to transfer to a paper chart. Now you have a GPS unit that will fix lines of position automatically in an electronic format chart which is displayed on glass rather than paper.

So you see, there are really two separate issues related to glass. There is "Glass vs Steam" in the representation of attitude and tactical control, and "Glass vs Paper" in the representation of navigation and strategic control.

I think with my setup I am looking at a Liquid Crystal Display with a plasticized screen, not glass.

 

[Henning]

I think with my setup I am looking at a Liquid Crystal Display with a plasticized screen, not glass.

Mmmmm...try dropping it from pattern altitude, I'm betting that you find glass...

 

[Everskyward]

What are you looking at in any of them? You are looking at a piece of glass

You are looking at a piece of glass most of the time when you are looking at conventional instruments too...

 

[Henning]

You are looking at a piece of glass most of the time when you are looking at conventional instruments too...

Break the glass in in your GPS and your OBS and tell me which one still works...

 

[EdFred]

Break the glass in in your GPS and your OBS and tell me which one still works...

What if I break the glass in the slip skid indicator?

 

[Everskyward]

Break the glass in in your GPS and your OBS and tell me which one still works...

Depends on how badly you break it.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I think most people would disagree with this definition:

Your hand held is still "glass", so is the screen on that KLN-94 (is more likely the number). You are receiving pictorial information, not some numbers, or a needle deflection to tune in on to get an LOP (line of position in this context, not lean of peak). Leave anything with a pictorial screen on it out of the plane. Just because it's not certified for installation or use for IFR navigation does not make it not Glass.

and agree with this one:

When I think glass, I think Aspen, G600, G1000, Avidyne packages, etc... Not a handheld. My phone will even give me position on a chart, and don't consider that glass.

but if you want to call a hand-held GPS in a plane a "glass cockpit", that's your call