Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight Crew Student; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 7.1; Flight Crew Total 336.8; Flight Crew Type 37.1
Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Software and Automation
This was the first flight to work on regaining my instrument proficiency after an over 30 year layoff. I have about 12 hours of simulator time in the past several months; but this was going to be my first flight under the hood; mixed with some actual IMC in three decades and my first instrument time in my aircraft. Additionally; my aircraft has recently had an all new Garmin GPS MFD; CDI and autopilot system installed. I've practiced with the Garmin software simulator and watched training videos; but only used my specific equipment on two brief VFR flights. My instructor seemed generally familiar with my Garmin equipment but may have been less familiar with the details of things like loading and activating approaches. By agreement with my instructor; I used the flight director but not the autopilot on this flight.Two days before this flight I spent two hours with my instructor reviewing ground training material (e.g.; lost comm. procedures and reading IFR charts). At the conclusion of that session we decided to plan a trip from ZZZ to ZZZ1; intending to fly an LPV approach to DA; execute the published missed approach and then return to ZZZ; completing an approach and landing. I spent a fair amount of time studying the planned flight; particularly the available RNAV approach and its published missed approach procedure. However; the morning of our flight I arrived at the FBO and spoke with my instructor. He was concerned that some convective activity may be morning our direction; so we agreed to change our plans and fly to ZZZ2 instead. He instructed me to file a round-robin flight to ZZZ2 via ZZZZZ (an IAF/IF for the approach we intended to make into ZZZ2) and ZZZZZ1 (an IF/IAF for the approach we wanted back into ZZZ). I filed via ForeFlight and received an email that advised us to expect to be cleared as filed. I programmed our GPS with the expected route.We called for our clearance from ZZZ Center by telephone and departed. At 500 feet; per my instructor's instructions; I turned direct ZZZZZ and contacted ZZZ Center and continued climbing to our assigned altitude; 7;000 feet. Soon after reaching 7;000 feet we were told to cross ZZZZZ at or above 6;000 feet (we may also have been cleared for the approach at this point; but I don't remember for sure). After confirming with my instructor; I set my altitude select to 6;000 feet and began a descent. As we descended my instructor cautioned me that we did not want to descend below 6;000 feet and then asked a question about our planned approach and I went to look at the plate in ForeFlight I managed to close the plate accidentally. As I bobbled with my tablet; I lost track of my altitude. At roughly the same time; I noticed I was too low; my instructor told me I needed to climb and Center called on the radio with an altitude alert. I immediately started a climb to 6;000 feet and then acknowledged Center's alert.Sometime around when we got back to 6;000 feet Center cleared us (possibly for the second time) for the RNAV Y Runway XX approach; again instructing us to cross ZZZZZ at or above 6;000 feet. I repeated the clearance; accidentally saying Runway XY. My instructor corrected me and I corrected myself to Center. I believe this is the point my instructor took over communications for the rest of the flight. As we approached ZZZZZ my instructor told me to turn right to intercept final. I did so and tracked lateral and vertical guidance; struggling with the vertical; in particular. At 1;700 feet; a little above the published DA; my instructor declared a missed approach and our intention to return to ZZZ. Tower acknowledged and told us to contact Center when we climbed past an altitude (I believe 5;000 feet); which we did. As we climbed towards 7;000 feet my instructor told me to fly direct ZZZZZ1 and then amended that to ZZZZZ2. During this he was programming something into the GPS and making it difficult to track the CDI so I just tried to maintain my heading and climb for themoment. I believe he had an exchange or two with Center in this time.  Soon the GPS was programmed for ZZZ via ZZZZZ1 and I was flying that route.On the way back; we were asked to copy a number and contact Center on the ground. Subsequently; we were cleared for the RNAV RWY YY approach into ZZZ. We executed the approach and circled to land on RWY YY without further incident. When we contacted Center we were informed of three possible Pilot Deviations:The altitude excursion prior to ZZZZZ.   Failure to do a Procedure Turn (PT) before turning on final at ZZZ2. Not mentioned by ATC; but we may have made the same error coming back to ZZZ.  Failure to fly the published missed out of ZZZ2.Lessons learned.  This flight was likely overly ambitious. We should have spent time getting me used to flying my airplane under the hood maintaining airspeed; course; altitude; making heading and altitude changes; etc. instead of jumping to a short cross country with two approaches in MVFR or to IMC conditions. It likely would have been wiser to scrub this flight rather than change the intended plan at the last minute. Given how long it has been since I flew in simulated or actual instrument conditions; a radical plan change at the last minute increased my workload and stress level beyond my current ability to compensate. I should not be so complacent. I flew under conditions that I would not have were I solo; even if I could have dodged around the IMC. I should not have divided my attention during the descent prior to ZZZZZ. Once there; I should probably have used the autopilot; or at least requested permission from my instructor; before messing around trying to get the approach plate back up. I could have requested delay vectors or; ironically; flown the published hold; if I needed more time. I should have questioned my instructor more about the PT/hold-in-lieu It showed up on the moving map. More generally; before we got into a position were we had to fly it; my instructor and I should have briefed the approaches into ZZZ1; ZZZ; and any other approaches we might have had to fly; making sure up front we knew what to expect; including missed approach procedures.
While conducting an IPC with my student who has not flow anything instrument related in 30 plus years were flying on a IFR flight plan from ZZZ to ZZZ via ZZZ2 for a practice approach on the RNAV. Although the weather conditions were not perfect; they were VFR with constant visibility to the ground. While en-route and approximately halfway between ZZZ and ZZZ2; ZZZ Center cleared us for the RNAV Y XX into ZZZ2 telling us to cross over ZZZZZ at or above 6;000 feet. My student read this back as 'Cleared RNAV XY' not XX. I corrected my student but Center did not. I have found this to be common as it could be heard as XY. While continuing to ZZZZZ; my student struggled to maintain altitude and was continually descending. I was advising him to watch his altitude and regain the 6;000 foot assigned clearance ATC gave us. He continued to descend lower and lower. I was struggling to get control of the airplane as he insisted; he had the situation control and guarded the throttle and stick preventing me from assisting. It should be noted that my student is a larger gentleman and I am a smaller person relatively speaking. His hand was guarding the single throttle tightly not letting go and I was struggling to move in the cockpit of the small aircraft to gain control of the airplane. By this time it was too late and ATC gave us the 'low altitude' alert over the radio. As ATC was contacting us I was forcing myself to add throttle and pull the stick back to regain the altitude lost abruptly and dramatically. This was deviation 1. The lesson here to myself; as somewhat new CFII with lots of experience showing people how to fly in VMC but not on an instrument flight plan; is to not let the students over power you. Seeing as this was a smaller airplane with dual controls although limited access; it is certainly a mistake I will not be making again. Further on in the flight; while approaching ZZZZZ and after getting the clearance to fly the RNAV Y XX into ZZZ2; my student and I discussed how to enter the approach at XXXXX seeing as it was an IAP. We both agreed that turning directly inbound to the final approach course of XXX was the correct choice and not flying the procedure turn. I personally settled on the choice for 3 reasons. Because in all of my experience flying; whenever ATC wants me to fly a procedure turn; they specifically ask or tell me to do so. Seeing as no notification was received on our end; the lead me to believe a straight in turn was desired. This includes flights with numerous other CFIIs; other pilots and even DPEs. I have actually asked this question to numerous CFIIs who taught me and all have agreed with the decision I made before this incident occurred.  From our perspective; the turn was approximately 90 degrees and was by no means unsafe or reckless in any manner to make that turn. We were on the correct side to make a straight in approach and procedure turn would have been more unnecessary all things considering.  The Garmin GNC 355 with an up to date database; said to make that turn. Not saying I am one of them; but I know several pilots who will do anything their GPS tells them to do. As I do not think this is wise; coupled with the previous two reasons; it cemented my choice to make that turn. Every approached; even GPS approaches like an RNAV should be backed up with the proper approach plates and proper procedure. However; if the GPS unit in the aircraft is the one displaying guidance and if it is giving information you truly do believe to be correct; it is hard to ignore it. That was deviation 2. While it is easy for me to say that this deviation was 100% not my fault; after going back and looking at resources like Flightaware and our ground track on Foreflight; it can be seen that the turn was more than 90 degrees and telling us that maybe something was not right. In hindsight and now be able to look at the regulations closer (AIM 5-4-9); we were supposed to fly the procedure turn. However; after watching over another CFII giving instruction from the back seat on the following day; this exact same thing happened on the RNAV [approach] into ZZZ3. They were cleared for the approach via ZZZZZ3 and no 'procedure straight in' instructions were given. Approach did not mention anything to them as if it never happened and is an acceptable procedure. Overall this error in flying the approach is on me. Plain and simple; I cannot blame anyone else for it. With that being said I know for a fact that I have been told by several other instructors and seen it done numerous other times with ATC intervention or no repercussions what so ever. A good solution to this problem would be to increase communication between pilots ATC to ensure that they are both on the same page when it comes to entering a approach at the angle we did.  I should have contacted them and asked to clarify. That is on me. After crossing over ZZZZZ and continuing the approach everything went flawlessly. I told my student to relax; and to fly the approach as he has done in the past. Somewhere around the final approach fix; ZZZ approach handed us off to ZZZ. In this transmitting I specifically remember him saying 'talk to you soon' implying that we are going missed and he will pick us up on the missed approach. This would make sense as this is how we filed and we were cleared 'as filled' when we took off out of ZZZ. After being handed off to ZZZ2 tower and continuing the approach; we hit the minimums for our training exercise and flew out on published missed approach. It should be noted that we were never given any specific missed approach clearance implying that we fly the published missed. While going missed; we informed ZZZ2 tower and they said passing though 3;500 feet to contact ZZZ Center. When we came through 3;500 feet; we contacted center and they asked us if we intended to go back to ZZZ to which we said yes. In our reply I recall asking them if we are cleared direct ZZZZZ1 to which I heard a yes from center and responded by saying 'cleared direct ZZZZZ1'. As we started to fly direct to ZZZZZ1; Center came back and told us to fly the published missed. We re-scrambled our radios/nav at that time and did as instructed. This is when I realized that something had happened. This was deviation 3. The lesson here is that there was a breakdown in communication on what was expected from us on the missed approach. Seeing as we filed from ZZZ-ZZZZZ-ZZZ2-ZZZZZ1-ZZZ and we cleared for this; the idea of proceeding to ZZZZZ1 was fresh in our mind so when we heard that 'ready to go back to ZZZ' call; we asked for direct ZZZZZ1. What we heard; or thought we heard was obviously different than what we were cleared for. For this; I am equally in the wrong as everybody else involved. More clarification once again should have been made between our aircraft and the controller. To offer a little bit more context and a possible explanation for some of these events; I would like to back track and set the stage before the flight. Remember; this is not an excuse; only a possible explanation. After we got in the airplane and taxied out; did our run up; we were ready to get our IFR clearance. Note ZZZ is an uncontrolled airport. We tried for a few minutes on the ground to get a hold of ZZZ Center on XXX.XX. This almost always works and we can get the clearance and copy it down with easy and proceed as directed. This time; there was an issue where it appeared Center could hear us but we could not hear them. We tried several times then gave up and called the clearance delivery phone number. They informed us that they could hear us and to try again; so we hung up and tried again. We did this to no avail and could still not get them on the radio. We then called the number again and got our clearance that way. What this means to me is there was some sort of radio issues that were happening possibly before we even took off. Seeing as clearance delivery over the phone said Center could hear us; this was negated especially as the weather at this time was MVFR-VFR; and we proceeded with the flight. Looking back this could have been the root for some of the issues. What if some of our messages were not getting to center during the procedure turn issue or the missed approach instruction issues? The weather was hazy and the atmosphere was polluted immensely. Could this have been a part of the issue? If I am remembering events incorrectly; a different way or in a different order; that is totally possible. I am only human. But one thing I remember for sure from this entire flight was the lack of clear communication between our aircraft and Center. I make mistakes and I am more than happy to and willing to own up to those. But I can say with confidence that as a CFI; flying with a student who over powers the airplane and poor communication when ATC who thinks you are doing something and not confirming does not help. For me; the overall take away points from this flight is to really ensure both pilots have 100% clear and total access to the controls. This means as a CFI that you need to make sure your student knows when to listen and correct the mistakes you are pointing out OR give up flight controls to the CFI to correct them. Also; clarifying any and all procedures. Communication was poor and both parties were assuming something different 2 different times and neither clarified effectively. With that; I am glad nobody got hurt and it was all in VMC conditions executed safely. I really do appreciate the professionalism of ZZZ Center that day and at the very least pointing out or mistakes. Happy Flying.
Flight Instructor and student reported the student deviated from assigned altitude resulting in a low altitude alert from ATC; failed to perform the procedure turn on approaches; did not fly the published missed approach procedure and the student would not relinquish aircraft controls to the Instructor.