An air carrier medium large transport crew flew an overwater route from mia to lga. The aircraft was overwater equipped, but the crew was not overwater trained or current.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	235164
Time
Date	199302
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mia
State Reference	FL
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zma tower : mia
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	climbout : initial cruise other ground : preflight
Route In Use	enroute : other oceanic enroute : atlantic
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : second officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer
ASRS Report	235164
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
ASRS Report	234822
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far non adherence other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Mia-lga. Route: beeam, AR7, adoor, A700, merci, A554, champ, 4300, owenz, lga. En route to merci, captain questioned the legality of a domestic crew to accept and fly this route. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporting so states that the aircraft was overwater equipped. The captain had been qualified on international rtes as a first officer but was no longer current. The crew called their dispatch office on arrival in lga. The dispatcher said that the crew 'shouldn't have done this.' as long as no one tells on this crew, all will be well. Far 121.443 seems to indicate that this is acceptable except for the fact that training requirements agreed to between the air carrier and the FAA had not been complied with. All navigation and emergency gear was in place. Supplemental information from acn 234822: we were unsure whether we were legal to fly the route due to the fact that we were a domestic qualified crew and were not international qualified.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MLG CREW FLEW AN OVERWATER RTE FROM MIA TO LGA. THE ACFT WAS OVERWATER EQUIPPED, BUT THE CREW WAS NOT OVERWATER TRAINED OR CURRENT.

Narrative: MIA-LGA. RTE: BEEAM, AR7, ADOOR, A700, MERCI, A554, CHAMP, 4300, OWENZ, LGA. ENRTE TO MERCI, CAPT QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF A DOMESTIC CREW TO ACCEPT AND FLY THIS RTE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTING SO STATES THAT THE ACFT WAS OVERWATER EQUIPPED. THE CAPT HAD BEEN QUALIFIED ON INTL RTES AS A FO BUT WAS NO LONGER CURRENT. THE CREW CALLED THEIR DISPATCH OFFICE ON ARR IN LGA. THE DISPATCHER SAID THAT THE CREW 'SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS.' AS LONG AS NO ONE TELLS ON THIS CREW, ALL WILL BE WELL. FAR 121.443 SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THIS IS ACCEPTABLE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AGREED TO BTWN THE ACR AND THE FAA HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. ALL NAV AND EMER GEAR WAS IN PLACE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 234822: WE WERE UNSURE WHETHER WE WERE LEGAL TO FLY THE RTE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE A DOMESTIC QUALIFIED CREW AND WERE NOT INTL QUALIFIED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.