Narrative:

A new san diego noise regulation prohibits operation of a stage ii (large transport or medium large transport) aircraft after XB00 local. Violators are subject to a fine. Our scheduled departure time to lax was XA45. WX conditions in southern ca dictated flow restrictions past XB00. To avoid cancelling the flight, I contacted my dispatcher who also contacted FAA central flow control in washington. The plan was, if we were unable to obtain a release by XB00, we would re-file to las and attempt to change destination en route. We added enough fuel for a san-las flight with phx as an alternate and departed at XB00 filed san-las. En route center controllers were quite helpful with the destination change. I informed ATC that I had plenty of holding fuel, and any position in the arrival stream was fine with me. Upon arrival in lax, my dispatcher informed me that lax ARTCC planned to violate us. Subsequent communication between my company, FAA central flow control and lax ARTCC resulted in a verbal agreement not to file the violation. These thoughts and/or questions come to mind: we were unable to depart on any routing to lax, or to a lax holding fix, why? If FAA central flow control had no problem with our plan, why did a lax ARTCC supervisor want to file a violation? (Communications problem?) I believe my crew and I did our passenger and company a service by operating our flight safely and by not violating local noise regulations, and (we firmly believe) far's. The potential safety problem of rushed checklists and having to deal with this superfluous garbage to try to operate a flight could cause an accident.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT FILED TO A FALSE DESTINATION TO AVOID BEING DELAYED PAST THE SAN NOISE CURFEW BY DESIRED DESTINATION'S FLOW CONTROL.

Narrative: A NEW SAN DIEGO NOISE REG PROHIBITS OPERATION OF A STAGE II (LGT OR MLG) ACFT AFTER XB00 LCL. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO A FINE. OUR SCHEDULED DEP TIME TO LAX WAS XA45. WX CONDITIONS IN SOUTHERN CA DICTATED FLOW RESTRICTIONS PAST XB00. TO AVOID CANCELLING THE FLT, I CONTACTED MY DISPATCHER WHO ALSO CONTACTED FAA CENTRAL FLOW CONTROL IN WASHINGTON. THE PLAN WAS, IF WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A RELEASE BY XB00, WE WOULD RE-FILE TO LAS AND ATTEMPT TO CHANGE DEST ENRTE. WE ADDED ENOUGH FUEL FOR A SAN-LAS FLT WITH PHX AS AN ALTERNATE AND DEPARTED AT XB00 FILED SAN-LAS. ENRTE CENTER CTLRS WERE QUITE HELPFUL WITH THE DEST CHANGE. I INFORMED ATC THAT I HAD PLENTY OF HOLDING FUEL, AND ANY POS IN THE ARR STREAM WAS FINE WITH ME. UPON ARR IN LAX, MY DISPATCHER INFORMED ME THAT LAX ARTCC PLANNED TO VIOLATE US. SUBSEQUENT COM BTWN MY COMPANY, FAA CENTRAL FLOW CONTROL AND LAX ARTCC RESULTED IN A VERBAL AGREEMENT NOT TO FILE THE VIOLATION. THESE THOUGHTS AND/OR QUESTIONS COME TO MIND: WE WERE UNABLE TO DEPART ON ANY ROUTING TO LAX, OR TO A LAX HOLDING FIX, WHY? IF FAA CENTRAL FLOW CTL HAD NO PROB WITH OUR PLAN, WHY DID A LAX ARTCC SUPVR WANT TO FILE A VIOLATION? (COMS PROB?) I BELIEVE MY CREW AND I DID OUR PAX AND COMPANY A SVC BY OPERATING OUR FLT SAFELY AND BY NOT VIOLATING LCL NOISE REGS, AND (WE FIRMLY BELIEVE) FAR'S. THE POTENTIAL SAFETY PROB OF RUSHED CHKLISTS AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH THIS SUPERFLUOUS GARBAGE TO TRY TO OPERATE A FLT COULD CAUSE AN ACCIDENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.