Flight below minimum altitude

What happened

On 18 October 2019, a Piper PA-28-140 operated a private return flight from Archerfield, Queensland to Narrabri, New South Wales with one pilot on board. The flight was to be operated under visual flight rules (VFR)^[1] by day.

At 1915 Eastern Daylight Time, the aircraft returned to Archerfield after last light^[2] at 1,500 ft, which was below the lower safe altitude (LSALT) of 2,900 ft that is applied after last light. Air traffic control subsequently issued a safety alert to the pilot.

Pilot comments

At the time of the occurrence, the pilot was yet to undertake night VFR and instrument flight rules training. He had planned to arrive back at Archerfield before last light, however had miscalculated the time and had a subsequent delayed departure from Narrabri. The pilot was unaware of the night VFR procedures for Archerfield, in particular the LSALT and therefore the approach was flown at 1,500 ft as per day VFR procedures.

The pilot advised that in response to this occurrence he plans to undertake night VFR training.

Safety message

This incident highlights the need for pilots to carry out thorough flight planning and have an understanding of the risks associated with flying at night. Further information on the risks inherent to visual flight at night can be found in the ATSB publication, Avoidable Accidents No. 7 - Visual flight at night accidents: What you can't see can still hurt you.

It is recommended that VFR pilots should also use a personal minimums checklist to identify and manage risk factors. A personal minimums checklist is an individual pilot’s own set of rules and criteria for deciding if and under what conditions to fly or to continue flying based on their knowledge, skills and experience.

The ATSB SafetyWatch highlights the broad safety concerns that come out of our investigation findings and from the occurrence data reported to us by industry. One of the safety concerns is inflight decision making.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

__________

1. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) are the rules that govern the operation of aircraft in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) (conditions in which flight solely by visual reference is possible).
2. Last light is regarded as the time when the ambient light value falls below that required for aircraft operating underday visual flight rules and is defined as the time when the setting sun is six degrees below the western horizon.

What happened

On 30 August 2018, a Piper Seminole departed Jandakot, Western Australia on a dual IFR training flight.

During an ILS approach to Perth runway 24, the crew became visual at 1,800 ft and reported visual to tower. The crew were issued missed approach instructions to turn left 080 and climb to 2,500 ft visual. At the missed approach point, the crew initiated the missed approach under simulated asymmetric conditions and the instructor restored power to the engines once established in the climb. During the climb, the crew contacted the approach controller who issued an amended visual heading. The instructor then replied not visual to the approach controller who sought to confirm that the aircraft was in cloud, to which the instructor replied yes. The controller then, with the belief that the aircraft was in cloud below the minimum vector altitude, instructed the crew to climb at best rate to 2,800 ft which the crew complied with.

The pilot later reported that the crew were visual at the time they reported not visual, however were unable to maintain visual with the current clearance. As a result, the crew were instructed to climb above the minimum vector altitude of 2,500 ft in Instrument Metrological Conditions (IMC).

Following the incident, the operator advises that an investigation was undertaken and the pilot in command was interviewed and de-briefed.

Safety message

Pilots are responsible to inform ATC if they are unable to comply with a clearance. Doing so early will give more time for a controller to issue an alternative clearance.

About this report

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.