Got a pilot deviation today

W

Whoops

Guest
today my CFII and I were taking a flight on an IFR flight plan. I thought I had the SID briefed right, so we departed. He let me get really behind the airplane as a teaching lesson, so I missed the radial to intercept and got a little closer to terrain than ATC would have liked. We got the low altitude aleRt and a vector to intercept the correct radial. I still was behind and at this point lost all situational awareness. Missed the radial again and was again assigned a vector. I flew the vector until intercept. Cfii had me follow the radial, until departure came on and asked where we were going. They basically said whatever, and let us on our way. We all know where this story goes, got the Brasher warning, and called in when we landed. Gave my info, and filed an ASRS report when we got home. Was a great learning experience, but feel like an idiot. Been flying off and on since the 90s, and am a bit rusty after 4 years off.
 
So the CFII didn't do anything to prevent this from occurring? Who was PIC? Are you an instrument student? IMC or VMC?
 
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.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Who filed as PIC? You made the phone call, not the CFII?
Click to expand...

I am a CFII, and such sloppiness is the result of the CFII’s incompetence - regardless of the student’s experience. The CFII should’ve owned up to this and made the call.
 
Correct.. Was under the hood and got very behind.. Just hoping I am not totally f'd.
 
TRACON told me that QC MAY follow up if they have questions. Does this mean that it'll go up the food chain to FSDO at some point in time? Or can this stop at TRACON with a conversation? I did state for the record that I am an Instrument student flying with my CFII on this flight.
 
What airport was this? Some SIDs can be complicated and demanding, but can always be declined by you or your CFII. Teterboro one is one example taking off runway 24 - especially in a fast airplane and unfamiliar pilot. The RUUDY ONE rnav departure is much easier.
 
Kritchlow said:
I’m betting your CFII was also behind the airplane. It should never go that far.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s one thing for a CFI to let the student flail a bit, but to allow the situation to go to the point of a PD is as much the fault of the CFI as the student.

Think of it like tailwheel training. If the CFI allows a deviation to progress to the point of an actual runway excursion and ground loop, then that’s a bust on the CFI
 
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
 
OP here said:
I made the phone call. Which struck me as odd..
Click to expand...

Your CFII, that sly fox!

startrek.jpg
 
If you were the pilot flying and rated in the aircraft and the flight was conducted under IFR rules, unless you met the currency requirements for instrument flight, you could not act as PIC, in spite of being qualified to log the time as PIC. That would mean that the pilot who was acting as PIC would have to be the CFII and his name should be on the flightplan. Here are the relevant regulations for logging:

Sec. 91.153 VFR flight plan: Information required.

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing a VFR flight plan shall include in it the following information:
...
(3) The full name and address of the pilot in command or, in the case of a formation flight, the formation commander.

Sec. 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153 (a) of this part;
Click to expand...

I would suggest the CFII also submit a NASA form as he was most likely PIC and as such it was his pilot deviation he allowed you to commit.
 
Like others have said, the instructor let this progress way too far out of hand.. sounds like he or she may have also gotten behind the airplane

Prior to departure, did you guys do a proper briefing of the departure and get all the radios and nav equipment setup?
 
Just make sure you let everyone you talk to know you were receiving dual instruction and you are not current. Sounds to me like your cfi is trying to make sure they don’t have to talk about that day on an interview. I’d fire the cfi and make sure the FAA knows they were with you in the plane during the PD.
 
OP here said:
TRACON told me that QC MAY follow up if they have questions. Does this mean that it'll go up the food chain to FSDO at some point in time? Or can this stop at TRACON with a conversation? I did state for the record that I am an Instrument student flying with my CFII on this flight.
Click to expand...

QA guy reviews it. Doubtful that this one stays in house especially since we’re talking radar environment. You’re loss of seperation with terrain triggered a low altitude alert. That’s a mandatory occurrence report by ATC. The deviation from your assigned route is MOR material as well but not a biggie on the ATC end. QA will review it and send it to region. Region will send it to the FSDO. Don’t think it’s an electronic occurrence report automatically sent by the radar software but you can be sure the MOR has been filed and being reviewed by QA. Kind of a no brainer on their end.

Best to call the number and at least acknowledge the PD. Admitting fault is up to you but the radar tapes don’t lie. I imagine a FSDO warning notice to your CFI is in the future.
 
Last edited:
I agree it’s Velocity and John Collins - you were flying on. Your CFI’s ticket. Any deviation is going to go on him, and he should have made the call, not you. I too agree that the FAA/FSDO is going to be following up with your CFI...
 
The CFII apparently did a **** poor job of doing his job. I let students get behind the plane as part of learning. But there is a time and place to step in and take charge. He either let it go too far thinking he was doing a good job, or he was just as lost and confused as you were. Well a actually if you were under the foggles, he was worse!
 
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...
John Collins said:
If you were the pilot flying and rated in the aircraft and the flight was conducted under IFR rules, unless you met the currency requirements for instrument flight, you could not act as PIC, in spite of being qualified to log the time as PIC. That would mean that the pilot who was acting as PIC would have to be the CFII and his name should be on the flightplan.
....
I would suggest the CFII also submit a NASA form as he was most likely PIC and as such it was his pilot deviation he allowed you to commit.
Click to expand...
As John said, unless you were current IFR, your name cannot legally be on the flight plan. If you're not current IFR, the FAA's discussion with you and your CFI may get substantially beyond the details f the deviation itself.
 
Tossing a four year out of currency pilot into a SID without being prepared to take over and fly it?

Can’t keep track of where the airplane is on the SID in VMC?

Then makes the student call when he screws up?

This isn’t going to go well for that CFII.
 
My rules as an instructor were "if it won't kill is, bend the airplane or cause me to lose my license I'll let it happen". In this case the OP was let down by the last part.
Letting a student hang themselves figuratively is okay. To remain that far behind the plane? No. The lesson should have been broken off and refocused in a safe environment
 
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...

Since you flew under an IFR flight, your cfii was acting pic. CFR 61.3e says you can't be pic under ifr without an instrument rating. (The weather, being vmc, does not remove the fact that you were on an ifr flight plan and, therefore, "under ifr". ) Anyway, being ifr, your instructor cannot allow the flight to "wander" because it compromises atc's ability to separate traffic. Shame on him.
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
If you were the pilot flying and rated in the aircraft and the flight was conducted under IFR rules, unless you met the currency requirements for instrument flight, you could not act as PIC, in spite of being qualified to log the time as PIC. That would mean that the pilot who was acting as PIC would have to be the CFII and his name should be on the flightplan. Here are the relevant regulations for logging:



I would suggest the CFII also submit a NASA form as he was most likely PIC and as such it was his pilot deviation he allowed you to commit.
Click to expand...
Exactly, on an IFR flight plan the OP couldn't have been PIC. My question is also, why file at all? You can fly the SID without filing. I don't understand the notion of filing when it's VFR and you're flying under the hood. What benefit is there? Doesn't make sense, unless you're expecting to encounter IMC.
 
"Who was PIC" doesn't make much difference in situations like this. A CFI is held to the same standards and responsibilities as a PIC during an instructional flight, whether formally acting as PIC or not. And as my signature says, the PIC is not the only person potentially responsible for PDs, although students in training are generally not looked at as closely.

BTW, It's usually not best for someone to discuss this in a public forum while the possibility of some kind of follow-up is there.
 
mryan75 said:
Exactly, on an IFR flight plan the OP couldn't have been PIC. My question is also, why file at all? You can fly the SID without filing. I don't understand the notion of filing when it's VFR and you're flying under the hood. What benefit is there? Doesn't make sense, unless you're expecting to encounter IMC.
Click to expand...

I think we have established that the CFIs skills and or experience was lacking.
 
MauleSkinner said:
As John said, unless you were current IFR, your name cannot legally be on the flight plan. If you're not current IFR, the FAA's discussion with you and your CFI may get substantially beyond the details f the deviation itself.
Click to expand...
Agree. Nothing unusual about the student calling to file the flight plan (other than that it is usually done electronically these days), but the CFII should have made sure the OP gave the CFII's name and contact info. The OP, unless instrument rated, could not legally be PIC, and thus the CFII is going to bear most of the responsibility and the consequences here.
 
mryan75 said:
Exactly, on an IFR flight plan the OP couldn't have been PIC. My question is also, why file at all? You can fly the SID without filing. I don't understand the notion of filing when it's VFR and you're flying under the hood. What benefit is there? Doesn't make sense, unless you're expecting to encounter IMC.
Click to expand...
Two reasons. First flying a SID means busy airspace. It's best to be talking to ATC in those situations, and doing it as a "practice SID" would not necessarily avoid the PD.

Second, instrument training is more than following lines on a chart. Integrating ATC communications and compliance with instructions and clearances is a big part of it.
 
mryan75 said:
Exactly, on an IFR flight plan the OP couldn't have been PIC. My question is also, why file at all? You can fly the SID without filing. I don't understand the notion of filing when it's VFR and you're flying under the hood. What benefit is there? Doesn't make sense, unless you're expecting to encounter IMC.
Click to expand...
My first CFII and I filed a number of times during training to give me experience actually flying in the system. I think it's a valid tool... NOT making any excuses, though, for the OP's CFII's letting things get as far as they did.
 
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.
 
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...
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.
 
azure said:
My first CFII and I filed a number of times during training to give me experience actually flying in the system. I think it's a valid tool... NOT making any excuses, though, for the OP's CFII's letting things get as far as they did.
Click to expand...
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. But I, for one, don't get the impression that he was. Which would be just as serious a mistake on the CFII's part as the actual deviation IMO.

The fact that the CFII appears to be letting the OP take responsibility for the deviation is worse yet.
 
Last edited:
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