Page 1 of 1

NASA Form

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:19 am
by sellener777
So I'm filing a NASA form on a flight from last night. AMF2495 KSAN-KCRQ IFR. Really cool stuff......The opportunity for learning and increasing personal proficiency is just awesome using Pilotedge.

So I'm handflying the JS32 simulating night IMC to minimums to CRQ up the shoreline. Closer to CRQ I get vectors eastbound for the ILS24. At some point Im given 3500FT, still headed eastbound. Im briefing the approach to myself, and setting the radios ect.....

First thing that occurs in my head is "seems like ive been on this heading for awhile," not wanting to pester ATC I keep the heading. At this point my situational awareness consists of. Im NE of CRQ on an easterly vector that seems a bit long expecting a turn very soon. However, In my head I am not thinking about terrain or mountains at all (Midwest disease I guess).

Next thing that occurs is my radar altimeter fires up and starts counting down. The first several seconds of brain processing power is devoted to "whats wrong with my radar altimeter," My altitude is level, VSI is level. Everything looks good except the radar altimeter. Thoughts of a pitot static blockage/or a vacuum issue that is lowering me unsuspectedly occurred to me as well, but my pitot heat was on, and everything seemed to checkout.

It took several seconds to accept the fact the radar altimeter was working just fine, as well as the rest of the plane. I would estimate a long 15-20 seconds before adding power and climbing away from terrain.

I think about the time I was climbing through 4500ft ATC gave me a turn and a climb to 5200FT.

Things I think are important to take away from this:

1) If something doesn't seem right query ATC. A simple "verify you still want me on this heading," would work just fine. I didn't at the time because I didn't want to "pester" ATC, and I had poor SA relating to mountains to the east. I want to think that if I had had the idea that mountains are east of CRQ in the back of my head, I would have verified with ATC well before the radar altimeter went off. WE pay ATC salaries use them as much as you need. We are not there to try and make it easy for ATC at our expense.

2)Already spoke to it in 1. above, but always maintain an appropriate level of SA. In this case, just understanding you have some socal mountains east of your position. I think we sometimes think of SA as relating more to approach plates/airways/ect......I sometimes forget that it pertains to a wide variety of things/concepts. Fuel/weather/passengers/airport services/physical location/terrain.......

3) Get on the radio sooner post radar altimeter going on.....After accepting that I was to low for terrain based on radar altimeter I did climb but did not query ATC. My mental energies were still being used in climbing the aircraft away from the mountain and still accepting the fact was to low. It would have increased safety to climb and if able query ATC for terrain avoidance. Once they clued in on the situation they could have provided a safer way away from terrain perhaps. I very well still could have flown into the side of a mountain on that east heading in the climb, but ATC could have helped with that.

4) Another example of poor SA in this case would also be my failure to use more brain power when given the vector. In my flying I rarely fly near terrain. I have never been on a vector with a mountain popping out above the fog. I know from training I should pay close attention to my location on a vector, but having never seen a mountain popping out of an overcast at me, it hasn't made a lasting impression. Any mountain flyer I suspect gets pretty interested in there location when vectored of an airway or approach :0) When given a vector a red flay should go up as it relates to terrain and your geographic SA.

5) On the ATC side of things, I believe the controller was at an increased workload at the time.


In my opinion, home based PC simulation, is the future of GA proficiency. For the average GA IFR pilot an average 2 hour IPC = 400$ wasted to legally send an unsafe pilot into the system.

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:25 pm
by Donovan
I was on the same frequency, when I heard over the radio "I love my radio altimeter".... <chuckle>
I have learned so much on PilotEdge -- from unexpected situations of my own, and the experiences shared by others.
Great post, thanks!

Don

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:54 pm
by Peter Grey
Hello,

Obviously ATC did something wrong here as you not have been that low to cause this type of issue.

In the end you did the correct thing by climbing away from the terrain. I'll follow up with the controller who was working at the time to see what happened.

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:23 pm
by sellener777
Peter,

I hope its clear the intent of my post in no way is trying to tattle on a controller. I spoke with the controller briefly and explained my end, and he explained his. We both had a laugh, but also learned something as well. Your controllers are always doing a top notch job, in particular, the one working me last night. I just love the dynamic enviorment created by the network i wanted to share. Keep up the good work.

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:49 pm
by Keith Smith
Good situational awareness there, thanks for posting! We do mistakes on the scope from time to time. 3500 is the MVA for one of the sectors, but it only works if you get turned to the south for the base. If they keep you on the downwind much further, the MVA increases. We generally train controllers to use extreme caution in pointing someone at a higher MVA. In general, we keep you at the higher 'next' MVA unless we're actively turning you away from it.

The terrain around CRQ and SAN is pretty hairy, this can happen if there's a small oversight.

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:52 pm
by Peter Grey
I hope its clear the intent of my post in no way is trying to tattle on a controller.
No worries it is and the controller won't be in any type of trouble.

I've actually already heard back from him and as the two of you have already sorted out what happened I don't think I need to go into the details.

For those following along, this was a controller mistake which has been addressed.

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:44 pm
by PenfoldPilot
Personally I think it is a benefit when the PE are not perfect, just like RW and makes a pilot appreciate that they have to take care of number 1.

To the OP, is that NASA form the real one or a simulation one? I didn't realize it was used for simulated flight.

Re: NASA Form

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:20 pm
by Pieces
PenfoldPenury wrote:To the OP, is that NASA form the real one or a simulation one? I didn't realize it was used for simulated flight.
Not OP, but he meant the forum post to be his "NASA form". There isn't any simulated NASA form for PilotEdge, and filing a real one for a simulated flight would be... ill advised, but funny.