Got a pilot deviation today

The OP said he's an instrument student in post #6. If so then the CFII is on the hook.
 
bflynn said:
I have a different take on this from the mob - the instructor was in control and I don't read that the safety of the flight was ever in doubt. He could monitor things from a VFR standpoint.

Yes, they busted IFR regs. Yes, the CFI could have reigned it in before that. Nobody died, nobody came close to dying and I bet the OP will be much better prepared the next time he flies. The reaction I am getting from some here, you would think they were flying inverted or something.

Bottom line, they were always safe. Good lesson.
Click to expand...

Who here is making a big deal of the PD like “they were flying inverted or something”?? No one here is chastising the OP for the navigation error. Just informing them the path from here on out. That path should’ve started with the CFI calling since it would seem their name should be on the flight plan.

While it seems to be a simple mental error, it did result in 1) not adhering to an ATC clearance (FAR violation) and most likely 2) loss of minuimum terrain separation. Both are mandatory occurrence reports on the ATC side of it. It will find it’s way to the FSDO.

Now, because it’s the new, forgiving “everyone makes errors” compliance philosophy in the FAA, the OP and CFI will most likely get off with remedial training or at worst, a warning letter. Still doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take their error seriously and still doesn’t mean the PD paper trail ends.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
How did the CFI know he wasn’t causing a loss of seperation with arrival aircraft? I get that he can see terrain in good VMC, but an IFR aircraft just can’t stray into the arrival path. I understand that is not what happened in this case, but he likely didn’t know that.
Click to expand...
I had the same general thought. The issue with straying from an IFR instruction or clearance is loss of separation, and that can certainly be a safety issue, particularly on a SID or STAR. Bottom line is, we just don't know what effect the deviation had on the system.
 
OP here said:
I had filed the flight plan with my own name with his permission. I believe, since I am a certificated pilot, I was PIC, but receiving dual instruction. I briefed the departure before leaving, but let external pressures get to me (was meeting my ex for a custody exchange). I guess I didn't have as good a grasp of what was expected before departure.
Click to expand...

Well wait a minute, did you file an IFR flight plan? If so, you could not have accepted an IFR clearance as PIC.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Instrument training on an IFR flight plan is more than a valid tool...it's a necessary part of instrument training.

The question here, though, is was it a legal flight plan? The OP may be instrument rated and current...he didn't actually say one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Actually, he did say that he's an instrument student. See post #6.

edit: should have read down one post, @mscard88 beat me to it.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Well wait a minute, did you file an IFR flight plan? If so, you could not have accepted an IFR clearance as PIC.
Click to expand...
The point that muddies the waters here a little is that the OP said that his own name was on the flight plan, not the CFII's. That should not have been, and what happened here is a good example of why. But I expect it will all shake out when it becomes clear to the ASI investigating the PD that it was a training flight, and the legal PIC was the CFII. Technically, although the OP was handling the radios, the CFII was the one who accepted the clearance. As others have said, the consequences to the OP will almost certainly be minimal. Not so sure about the CFII though.
 
azure said:
The point that muddies the waters here a little is that the OP said that his own name was on the flight plan, not the CFII's. That should not have been, and what happened here is a good example of why. But I expect it will all shake out when it becomes clear to the ASI investigating the PD that it was a training flight, and the legal PIC was the CFII. Technically, although the OP was handling the radios, the CFII was the one who accepted the clearance. As others have said, the consequences to the OP will almost certainly be minimal. Not so sure about the CFII though.
Click to expand...

Doesn't muddy anything, the guy was on a training flight because.... he needed training, the CFII knew he filed IFR, if the OP was totally up to speed on IFR procedures he wouldn't have been on a training flight.

Any ASI with a IQ above that of a labradoodle will rightfully and correctly look completely past the STUDENT and will look only at the CFII.
 
James331 said:
Doesn't muddy anything, the guy was on a training flight because.... he needed training, the CFII knew he filed IFR, if the OP was totally up to speed on IFR procedures he wouldn't have been on a training flight.

Any ASI with a IQ above that of a labradoodle will rightfully and correctly look completely past the STUDENT and will look only at the CFII.
Click to expand...
The muddy part isn't that he was on a training flight, the muddy part is why was the OP's name on the flight plan? The OP said it was with the CFII's permission. There will certainly be hard questions about that. What if the CFII claims he instructed the OP to put down his (CFII's) name and denies knowing that the OP did anything else? Hopefully this is just a CFII who made some mistakes, but some of this smells as if the guy might be a scumbag. It won't really change anything, it's still the CFII's responsibility to make sure the flight plan is correctly filed. But it could make things uncomfortable for the OP.

As I said, I'm fairly sure everything will shake out fairly soon, the only real question is what kind of action the FAA will take against the CFII. At most there will be a minor wrist slap for the OP I should think, and hopefully not even that.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
I don't disagree, as I said it will all shake out soon enough. But I imagine there will be some hard questions around whether the CFII knew that the trainee was putting his own name on the flight plan. If the CFII disavows all knowledge... and says that he told the OP to put his (CFII's) name down, that's where things could get a little muddy for the OP. It all depends on whether this CFII just made some mistakes or whether he's actually a scumbag.

Either way, the CFII is going to bear the brunt of whatever corrective action the FAA takes, just saying there could still be a wrist slap in it for the OP too, depending on some of the details.
Click to expand...
I would say that since the CFII had the OP make the phone call, that pretty much says he knew whose name was on the flight plan, regardless of what he says later on.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I would say that since the CFII had the OP make the phone call, that pretty much says he knew whose name was on the flight plan, regardless of what he says later on.
Click to expand...
Unless he claims he stepped into the restroom while the call was being made or something like that. It will still not go well for the CFII as it is his responsibility to know, if he didn't. Hopefully it was just a mistake on the CFII's part and he has enough honor to own up to it.
 
azure said:
The point that muddies the waters here a little is that the OP said that his own name was on the flight plan, not the CFII's. That should not have been, and what happened here is a good example of why. But I expect it will all shake out when it becomes clear to the ASI investigating the PD that it was a training flight, and the legal PIC was the CFII. Technically, although the OP was handling the radios, the CFII was the one who accepted the clearance. As others have said, the consequences to the OP will almost certainly be minimal. Not so sure about the CFII though.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter though whose name is on the flight plan? I honestly don't remember if I put my name or my CFII's when I had to file.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Does it really matter though whose name is on the flight plan? I honestly don't remember if I put my name or my CFII's when I had to file.
Click to expand...
I do, and my CFII was quite clear that I was supposed to put his name and contact info down. It doesn't really change anything, it's still the CFII's responsibility, but it is a technical point that could earn the OP a wrist slap if the ASI is somehow swayed that the CFII instructed the OP correctly and the OP put down his own name anyway. If I had wanted to eff my CFII over that way I could have, as he trusted me and never double checked the name on the flight plan. That's just one more little legal point they can burn the CFII on, how badly depends on whether he tries to weasel his way out of it.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Does it really matter though whose name is on the flight plan? I honestly don't remember if I put my name or my CFII's when I had to file.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, at least I never worried about it. I have flown flights that other people have filed, for example when we changed crews but were flying the same airplane.

If you're flying for a company with an actual dispatcher (I didn't), the dispatcher files the flight plan.
 
Velocity173 said:
Now, because it’s the new, forgiving “everyone makes errors” compliance philosophy in the FAA, the OP and CFI will most likely get off with remedial training or at worst, a warning letter. Still doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take their error seriously and still doesn’t mean the PD paper trail ends.
Click to expand...
For my PD (runway incursion) it was some counseling and review of what I was going to change. My CFI was not required to be there, probably because I was on a student solo flight.

I should note, there was a second part of the FSDO interview...full review of aircraft logs. Perhaps they did this since it was my own plane and not under some Part NNN operation? I have heard of other PD's resulting in FSDO aircraft log reviews and others that did not.

Given how I was I interviewed under the new compliance approach I do not suspect you will have a loss of any ratings, etc. If they deem it your responsibility you might receive a warning that will not appear on your permanent record. However, i suspect your CFII will at a minimum be required to be interviewed and I bet he'LL need some type of training.
 
Noah Werka said:
Did you actually get the warning?:

“N250WL, POSSIBLE PILOT
DEVIATION,
ADVISE
YOU
CONTACT [facility] AT [telephone
number].”

Page 2:

The warning

Gotta hear the term "Possible Pilot Deviation"...

Noah W
Click to expand...
Mine started out this way. One weird thing, it took almost a month before they called so I wouldn't interpret hearing nothing to mean nothing will happen.
 
Op here said:
The lesson I am taking away from it is to not launch without having 100% of the picture and speaking up for an explanation of what we need to do if I’m not fully clear. The cockpit when low to the ground with rising terrain is not the place to be asking questions or questioning what I should be doing
Click to expand...
A few years ago, I had a similar issue on an IMC departure out of San Carlos (SQL). Their usual departure instructions are very complicated, due to the proximity to SFO and its final approach courses. Although I had flown in and out of SQL many times, this was my first IFR departure from there, so the procedure was new to me, and once I got airborne, I found that what I had written down was too cryptic. (Fortunately, I knew enough to stay away from the SFO finals!)

Luckily, I didn't get a deviation or a number to call, in spite of the fact that I had interfered somewhat with traffic on final to SQL. In writing up my ASRS report, I came to the realization that I should have gone over my notes before takeoff, to make sure that everything was clear while it was still fresh in my mind, and while there was still an opportunity to get a repeat on anything if needed.
 
Oh yeah, you can either sit and wait for something to happen or get out there and continue to fly.

After a review with my instructor and some changes he sent me right back out to solo. I was nervous but so glad I went out again instead of waiting...for what would have been a month. That also helped with the confidence!

I have no clue about instrument training. However, maybe you and your CFII can officially meet, maybe include the FBO chief instructor, do your own review, make some changes and then start flying again? You can atleast cite that process during your possible interview. Maybe that's not right, but from my talks to them they seem to want that sort of thinking and action.
 
I don't see how the OP can be on the hook for anything when he's not instrument rated, is under the instruction of a CFII, doing what the CFII tells him to do and how to do it (telling him to put the OP's name on the flight plan), and then he's under the hood under the instruction of the CFII in VFR weather, who is also the safety pilot as well as instructor.
 
azure said:
Unless he claims he stepped into the restroom while the call was being made or something like that. It will still not go well for the CFII as it is his responsibility to know, if he didn't. Hopefully it was just a mistake on the CFII's part and he has enough honor to own up to it.
Click to expand...
It really doesn’t matter. He could have been in the back seat on a non-instructional flight and still have his hand slapped for not intervening. He’s a flight instructor and that rating comes with a lot of responsibility. If the story we are getting is accurate the cfi should have a conversation with an ASI.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Does it really matter though whose name is on the flight plan? I honestly don't remember if I put my name or my CFII's when I had to file.
Click to expand...
I hope that the FAA is not making a big deal about whose name is on the flight plan for instructional flights, beyond simply pointing out the error. I can understand how it could be important in airline service, but for noncommercial flights, as far as I know no one dies from having the wrong name on the flight plan form.

The flight path error, on the other hand, is obviously a different matter. I agree about instructor responsibility. A couple of months ago, on my second instructional flight in a G1000 Skylane, I was still struggling with the buttonology while we were pointed at the SFO class B, but I was fortunate in that the instructor was on top of it and warned me in time to avoid an incursion.
 
azure said:
The muddy part isn't that he was on a training flight, the muddy part is why was the OP's name on the flight plan? The OP said it was with the CFII's permission. There will certainly be hard questions about that. What if the CFII claims he instructed the OP to put down his (CFII's) name and denies knowing that the OP did anything else? Hopefully this is just a CFII who made some mistakes, but some of this smells as if the guy might be a scumbag. It won't really change anything, it's still the CFII's responsibility to make sure the flight plan is correctly filed. But it could make things uncomfortable for the OP.

As I said, I'm fairly sure everything will shake out fairly soon, the only real question is what kind of action the FAA will take against the CFII. At most there will be a minor wrist slap for the OP I should think, and hopefully not even that.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you don't know, it was a TRAINING FLIGHT/lesson

When they CFI picked up their IFR clearance, CFII obviously knew he didn't put the clearance in himself, he also should have gone over the students planning, so ether way you put it, by omission or commission, its ALL on the CFII.

Walboy said:
Poodles are pretty intelligent don't ya know...

http://www.allpoodleinfo.com/poodle-intelligence
Click to expand...

But the lab part introduces a little "durp" into the mix lol
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
You don't know what you don't know, it was a TRAINING FLIGHT/lesson
Click to expand...
Sure, but the trainee is supposed to at least follow the instructor's directions.
When they CFI picked up their IFR clearance, CFII obviously knew he didn't put the clearance in himself, he also should have gone over the students planning, so ether way you put it, by omission or commission, its ALL on the CFII.
Click to expand...
I agree, ultimately, it's all on the CFII. Worst case, he convinces the ASI that he told the OP to put his (CFII's) name down, OP put his own name down, CFII failed to check. Then the OP gets a little tongue-lashing for not following instructions, CFII gets same for not properly supervising his trainee. If the OP's account is correct and CFII told OP to put OP's name down (or that it was ok to do that), and OP's story prevails, then I don't know. It really shouldn't matter, as others have said, but this is the same FAA that apparently thinks it's a big deal to file IFR with "VFR" in the altitude box if you're not instrument rated. So I wouldn't be surprised if that goes even worse for the CFII.

But whether the name on the flight plan amounts to anything, the PD is certainly a big deal, and that is all on the CFII. 44709 ride, anyone?
 
azure said:
But whether the name on the flight plan amounts to anything, the PD is certainly a big deal, and that is all on the CFII. 44709 ride, anyone?
Click to expand...
Actually, the PD in itself is not that big a deal. It depends on how the inspector in charge decides to handle it.
 
azure said:
Sure, but the trainee is supposed to at least follow the instructor's directions.

I agree, ultimately, it's all on the CFII. Worst case, he convinces the ASI that he told the OP to put his (CFII's) name down, OP put his own name down, CFII failed to check. Then the OP gets a little tongue-lashing for not following instructions, CFII gets same for not properly supervising his trainee. If the OP's account is correct and CFII told OP to put OP's name down (or that it was ok to do that), and OP's story prevails, then I don't know. It really shouldn't matter, as others have said, but this is the same FAA that apparently thinks it's a big deal to file IFR with "VFR" in the altitude box if you're not instrument rated. So I wouldn't be surprised if that goes even worse for the CFII.

44709 ride, anyone?
Click to expand...

OP shouldn't hear jack chit from the FAA and I'd bring in a lawyer in if they so much as take a tone with him.

He's a student taking a lesson with a CFI, thats it, end of story, full stop.

It would be like me expecting the FAA to be blaming a pre solo student for not securing a gas cap after fueling, sure he should have done it, but I'm a PAID CFI, it's MY JOB to anticipate/fix/prevent the students screw ups, otherwise what's the point of even having CFIs.

If the OP knew all of this he wouldn't be paying a CFI in the first place lol
 
It’s been less than 24 hrs since the OP’s first post and the CFII’s future airline career has already ended! You guys, lol.

The CFII could very easily come clean about this to whomever is next to follow up, turn it into a story of how he let an instrument student drain his own SA and get him a PD, and have an airline hiring team swooning. It’s not a big deal, yet.
 
azure said:
Or on what the actual consequences were, separation-wise... those are details we just don't know.
Click to expand...
As I read the story, the separation issue was with the terrain. They obviously didn't hit it so...

The reason they got the PD was that it is automatic when an airplane loses legal separation with the terrain or with another airplane.
 
James331 said:
OP shouldn't hear jack chit from the FAA and I'd bring in a lawyer in if they so much as take a tone with him.
Click to expand...
Based on what the OP has said I would certainly HOPE he is party to the conversation with the ASI, since otherwise the CFII could say anything...
 
azure said:
Based on what the OP has said I would certainly HOPE he is party to the conversation with the ASI, since otherwise the CFII could say anything...
Click to expand...

And?

Durp CFII "The student had no idea what he was doing, he totally screwed up!!"

FAA "yeah....so..... that's why he's called a student, that's why he was paying you, THATS PART OF YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION"

Lol


Banjo33 said:
It’s been less than 24 hrs since the OP’s first post and the CFII’s future airline career has already ended! You guys, lol.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Shy of the CFII telling the FAA to F' off or something, I bet if he's cool about it and engages his brain, he'll get his pecker slapped, but doubt it would be a PRIA career ending kinda event.
 
Everskyward said:
As I read the story, the separation issue was with the terrain. They obviously didn't hit it so...

The reason they got the PD was that it is automatic when an airplane loses legal separation with the terrain or with another airplane.
Click to expand...
I had to go back and read the OP, but I think you're right - assuming it was ATC that only mentioned the terrain separation issue, that wasn't entirely clear though.
 
James331 said:
And?

Durp CFII "The student had no idea what he was doing, he totally screwed up!!"
Click to expand...
Ummm... that's if he's not a total scumbag. If you can't think of any worse possibilities, then your imagination is lacking. I really don't want to post what I'm thinking here, I just hope the guy is more above board than that.
 
PD isn’t just a loss of sep. Just the violation of 91.123 is enough. Loss of seperation is just a continuation of that if it should happen. Most controllers hold off on the 91.123 violation MOR unless it results in loss of sep.

I’ve had several aircraft that either deviated from course or altitude but never wrote them up. Those are all PDs but PDs I could slip under the rug. Had an F-18 student blow right through 10,000 and I didn’t catch it until she hit 12,000 and in center’s airspace. Could have easily issued a Brasher and written up a MOR but I didn’t. Center didn’t care and I didn’t care. She’s probably Admiral now. :D
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top