Narrative:

Initial clearance was pxn-czq-oal-bty-bld-pke. Just before reaching czq, ATC issued revised routing that we believed was czq-J92-bty-bld-pke. As we were almost on top of czq, we entered J92, the FMS displayed bty as the next waypoint, then lidat, bld, so we proceeded on that track while studying the chart for clarification. The chart indicated that J92 did not begin at czq, but rather at bty, which was the nearest waypoint on J92. About this time, ATC gave us a right turn, said we were supposed to be on J110 (neither pilot heard or read back this airway), which was a short cut for our route, and gave us a right turn to avoid an impending traffic conflict with an air carrier flight. Human factor suggestions: 1) ATC usually advises 'I have a revised routing for you, advise when ready to copy.' in this case, no heads up was given, only clearance naming 3 waypoints and 1 or 2 (the unheard) jet route numbers. A complex re-route should always be proceeded by a heads up. 2) unless such a revised routing can be issued at least 3 mins prior to a fix where the route is to change, ATC should issue an initial vector to permit the flight crew adequate time to study the route and re-program the FMS. 3) honeywell and universal FMS boxes will not permit an airway to be entered by route number (ie, J92, or J110) unless that airway begins at the waypoint selected. Standardized logic between FMS manufacturers should be encouraged. 4) ATC controller handled the resultant divergence with prompt professionalism and issued both aircraft vectors to avoid a conflict during this event. Frequency congestion indicated that this was a busy period.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CPR LTT CREW HAD A TRACK HEADING DEV WHEN THEY PROGRAMMED THEIR FMS IMPROPERLY. THEY WOULD LIKE A LITTLE WARNING BEFORE BEING GIVEN A CLRNC AMENDED.

Narrative: INITIAL CLRNC WAS PXN-CZQ-OAL-BTY-BLD-PKE. JUST BEFORE REACHING CZQ, ATC ISSUED REVISED ROUTING THAT WE BELIEVED WAS CZQ-J92-BTY-BLD-PKE. AS WE WERE ALMOST ON TOP OF CZQ, WE ENTERED J92, THE FMS DISPLAYED BTY AS THE NEXT WAYPOINT, THEN LIDAT, BLD, SO WE PROCEEDED ON THAT TRACK WHILE STUDYING THE CHART FOR CLARIFICATION. THE CHART INDICATED THAT J92 DID NOT BEGIN AT CZQ, BUT RATHER AT BTY, WHICH WAS THE NEAREST WAYPOINT ON J92. ABOUT THIS TIME, ATC GAVE US A R TURN, SAID WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON J110 (NEITHER PLT HEARD OR READ BACK THIS AIRWAY), WHICH WAS A SHORT CUT FOR OUR RTE, AND GAVE US A R TURN TO AVOID AN IMPENDING TFC CONFLICT WITH AN ACR FLT. HUMAN FACTOR SUGGESTIONS: 1) ATC USUALLY ADVISES 'I HAVE A REVISED ROUTING FOR YOU, ADVISE WHEN READY TO COPY.' IN THIS CASE, NO HEADS UP WAS GIVEN, ONLY CLRNC NAMING 3 WAYPOINTS AND 1 OR 2 (THE UNHEARD) JET RTE NUMBERS. A COMPLEX RE-RTE SHOULD ALWAYS BE PROCEEDED BY A HEADS UP. 2) UNLESS SUCH A REVISED ROUTING CAN BE ISSUED AT LEAST 3 MINS PRIOR TO A FIX WHERE THE RTE IS TO CHANGE, ATC SHOULD ISSUE AN INITIAL VECTOR TO PERMIT THE FLC ADEQUATE TIME TO STUDY THE RTE AND RE-PROGRAM THE FMS. 3) HONEYWELL AND UNIVERSAL FMS BOXES WILL NOT PERMIT AN AIRWAY TO BE ENTERED BY RTE NUMBER (IE, J92, OR J110) UNLESS THAT AIRWAY BEGINS AT THE WAYPOINT SELECTED. STANDARDIZED LOGIC BTWN FMS MANUFACTURERS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. 4) ATC CTLR HANDLED THE RESULTANT DIVERGENCE WITH PROMPT PROFESSIONALISM AND ISSUED BOTH ACFT VECTORS TO AVOID A CONFLICT DURING THIS EVENT. FREQ CONGESTION INDICATED THAT THIS WAS A BUSY PERIOD.

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.