# Incident 19990828031939I: Beech 58, State College, PA, August 28, 1999 - Type: FAA incident report (Accident/Incident Data System), as reported - Date: August 28, 1999, 10:00 local time - Place: State College, PA - Airport: University Park - Phase of flight: Normal Cruise - Operating rules: General operating rules (Part 91) - Location: 40.7910° N, 77.8568° W: Placed by OpenAirDocs: center of State College, PA, within about 6 miles (OpenAirDocs) - Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=40.7910&lon=-77.8568&mi=10 - Aircraft: N58GP, a cancelled registration (https://openairdocs.org/deregistered/N58GP-2013-03-14) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry model: Beech 58 (registry code 1152740, https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-58) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry engine: Continental IO-520 series (registry code 17032, https://openairdocs.org/engine/continental-io-520-series) (OpenAirDocs) - Reported make and model: BEECH 58 - Reported engine: CONT IO520* - People aboard: 5 - Fatal injuries: 0 - Pilot flight hours: 1,800 total, 500 in this make and model, 40 in the last 90 days - FAA source: FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal (https://asip.faa.gov/) - Page: https://openairdocs.org/incident/19990828031939I ## Narrative As the FAA filed it, in capitals; the FAA replaces private details with ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^. (-23) PILOT FILED WHAT HE STATED WAS AN IFR FLIGHT PLAN WITH DUATS, (IT WAS RECEIVED AS AN VFR FLIGHT PLAN.) HE DID COORDINATE FOR THE 'SLOT PROGRAM'-A REQUIREMENT FOR IFR. HE CALLED IPT FSS FOR WEATHER INFORMATION A FEW HOURS PRIOR TO FLIGHT AND ASKED IF THEY COULD CHECK ON HIS IFR FLIGHT PLAN. THEY INFORMED HIM THAT THE DUATS FLIGHT PLAN SYSTEM DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO CHECK ON FLIGHT PLANS AND RECOMMENDED THAT HE CHECK WITH CXY GROUND ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE TAKEOFF. PILOT ASKED CXY TOWER FOR IFR CLEARANCE 'AS FILED', CXY HAD NO INFORMATION ON IFR CLEARANCE. PILOT WENT BACK TO IPT FSS AND ATTEMPTED TO COORDINATE AGAIN FOR IFR CLEARANCE. PILOT STATES THAT HE THOUGHT THAT HE HAD AN IFR CLEARANCE ALL ALONG, IN FACT HE DID NOT. AFTER A REASONABLE WAITING PERIOD, ELECTED TO TAKEOFF VFR AND THOUGHT THAT THE IFR CLEARANCE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE PICKED UP AFTER TAKEOFF (NOT AN AIRFILE, BUT AN UNUSUAL ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY). AFTER HIS VFR TAKEOFF, THE ATC SYSTEM BECAME OVERLOADED TO THE POINT THAT ATC WAS NOT ACCEPTING ANY MORE IFR'S INTO ZNY CENTER SECTOR. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT INFORMATION WAS SHARED BETWEEN CXY AND MDT JUST AFTER N58GP'S TAKEOFF. ALL ALONG THE PILOT OF N58GP WAS CERTAIN THAT HE FILED AN IFR FLIGHT PLAN "PROPERLY" AND THAT ALL HE NEEDED WAS TO HAVE IT ACTIVATED. AFTER NUMEROUS REQUESTS TO ACTIVATE THIS FLIGHT PLAN WITH HAR APP WITHOUT SUCCESS, THE PILOT PERSISTED TO ACTIVATE WITH ZNY WITHOUT SUCCESS (ZNY WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY IFR FLIGHT PLAN). THE ZNY CONTROLLER INFORMED THE PILOT THAT HE COULD NOT PROVIDE VFR SERVICES AND TO EXIT THE FREQUENCY. THE DUATS SYSTEM AND THE DELAY IN PROVIDING THE FLIGHT PLAN RESULTED IN A COORDINATION PROBLEM THAT WAS EXASPERATED WHEN ALL PARTIES DID NOT EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE. THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE PILOT DID NOT UTILIZE THE DUATS SYSTEM (VFR VS. IFR AS HE STATED HE INTENDED TO FILE), AND HE USED THE 'CONVENTIONAL' TELEPHONE FSS FILING. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PILOT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN OFF VFR BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE IFR WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THE ISSUE OF WAITING UNTIL THE IFR CLEARANCE WAS PROVIDED WAS DETAILED EXTENSIVELY DURING COUNSELING WITH THE PILOT. ATC (CXY AND HAR APP) COULD HAVE BETTER EXPLAINED TO THE PILOT THE SATURATION IN THE UNIVERSITY PARK AREA AND PERHAPS FACILITATED THE TRANSITION TO IFR AND ZNY'S AIRSPACE, AS THE PILOT DID NOT MAKE THE NECESSARY COORDIN ATION WITH IPT FSS, HOWEVER DID NOT ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR ALL COORDINATION TO TAKE EFFECT. COUNSELING WAS COMPLETED WITH THE PILOT OF N58GP ON 11/17/99. ## Other reports on N58GP (1) Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date. - [Incident 19990901035439I](https://openairdocs.org/incident/19990901035439I), Sep 1, 1999: Beech 58 (N58GP), Harrisburg, PA. (-23) Pilot informed ATC shortly after takeoff from 29D (grove city, PA) that he had a landing gear problem. Nose gear was not locked and main gear status… From the FAA Accident/Incident Data System. Reports are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. For accidents, the NTSB's own investigation is the fuller record. --- OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.