Narrative:

Our clearance from yyz-bos: (toronto 2 V252 J16 alb as filed.) after receiving the above clearance we programmed the flight management system (FMS) for the flight. The company route which was stored in the FMS memory was as follows.....(YYZ01 ehman hankk alb ALB01 gdm...). As we looked over the 2 plans we noticed the discrepancy between the clearance of V252 J16 and the FMS version of ehman...hankk. On the charts there is no intersection where V252 and J16 meet but the 2 listed intxns on the FMS were within a few mi and we assumed that the FMS route was how the company had chosen us to make the transition from V252 to J16. Flying along between ehman and hankk ZOB asked us if we showed ourselves on the airway. We replied, 'yes,' and asked if there was a problem. The controller said he showed us to be 7 mi north of J16 and we immediately knew that the FMS route was not in fact in correlation with where the center had intended us to fly. We did match our clearance with the FMS on the ground, but we made the wrong assumption with using the intxns instead of programming exactly where V252 and J16 meet. I've noticed several times in using the FMS that the numbers representing the radial of an airway do not exactly come up the same as what is listed on the charts, but it has never been questioned before. I think this factored in with our acceptance of the preprogrammed company route. It was very close and in the past that has always worked. We have contacted the company and have been informed a notice will be put on all toronto to boston flight releases notifying crew members of this particular confusing issue. In speaking with several other pilots at the company who have flown the same route, some had noticed, some had not. It's not that we didn't check the accuracy of the FMS data, we just assumed it was what was intended due to the close proximity of the two. Shortly after the controller asked us about this issue, he cleared us direct to albany VOR and seemed to have no further questions. I understand what happened and will be more vigilant in the future as to correlating FMS company plans and our clrncs.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A CL65, REGIONAL JET, FAILED TO FOLLOW THEIR FLT PLAN CLRNC ROUTING RESULTING IN ATC INTERVENTION AND REDIRECTION TO GET BACK ON INTENDED RTE. THE ACFT FMS WAS PROGRAMMED IN ERROR AND THE FLC USING THIS PROGRAM HAD BEEN OFF COURSE AND HAD NOT KNOWN IT.

Narrative: OUR CLRNC FROM YYZ-BOS: (TORONTO 2 V252 J16 ALB AS FILED.) AFTER RECEIVING THE ABOVE CLRNC WE PROGRAMMED THE FLT MGMNT SYS (FMS) FOR THE FLT. THE COMPANY RTE WHICH WAS STORED IN THE FMS MEMORY WAS AS FOLLOWS.....(YYZ01 EHMAN HANKK ALB ALB01 GDM...). AS WE LOOKED OVER THE 2 PLANS WE NOTICED THE DISCREPANCY BTWN THE CLRNC OF V252 J16 AND THE FMS VERSION OF EHMAN...HANKK. ON THE CHARTS THERE IS NO INTXN WHERE V252 AND J16 MEET BUT THE 2 LISTED INTXNS ON THE FMS WERE WITHIN A FEW MI AND WE ASSUMED THAT THE FMS RTE WAS HOW THE COMPANY HAD CHOSEN US TO MAKE THE TRANSITION FROM V252 TO J16. FLYING ALONG BTWN EHMAN AND HANKK ZOB ASKED US IF WE SHOWED OURSELVES ON THE AIRWAY. WE REPLIED, 'YES,' AND ASKED IF THERE WAS A PROB. THE CTLR SAID HE SHOWED US TO BE 7 MI N OF J16 AND WE IMMEDIATELY KNEW THAT THE FMS RTE WAS NOT IN FACT IN CORRELATION WITH WHERE THE CTR HAD INTENDED US TO FLY. WE DID MATCH OUR CLRNC WITH THE FMS ON THE GND, BUT WE MADE THE WRONG ASSUMPTION WITH USING THE INTXNS INSTEAD OF PROGRAMMING EXACTLY WHERE V252 AND J16 MEET. I'VE NOTICED SEVERAL TIMES IN USING THE FMS THAT THE NUMBERS REPRESENTING THE RADIAL OF AN AIRWAY DO NOT EXACTLY COME UP THE SAME AS WHAT IS LISTED ON THE CHARTS, BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED BEFORE. I THINK THIS FACTORED IN WITH OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE PREPROGRAMMED COMPANY RTE. IT WAS VERY CLOSE AND IN THE PAST THAT HAS ALWAYS WORKED. WE HAVE CONTACTED THE COMPANY AND HAVE BEEN INFORMED A NOTICE WILL BE PUT ON ALL TORONTO TO BOSTON FLT RELEASES NOTIFYING CREW MEMBERS OF THIS PARTICULAR CONFUSING ISSUE. IN SPEAKING WITH SEVERAL OTHER PLTS AT THE COMPANY WHO HAVE FLOWN THE SAME RTE, SOME HAD NOTICED, SOME HAD NOT. IT'S NOT THAT WE DIDN'T CHK THE ACCURACY OF THE FMS DATA, WE JUST ASSUMED IT WAS WHAT WAS INTENDED DUE TO THE CLOSE PROX OF THE TWO. SHORTLY AFTER THE CTLR ASKED US ABOUT THIS ISSUE, HE CLRED US DIRECT TO ALBANY VOR AND SEEMED TO HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED AND WILL BE MORE VIGILANT IN THE FUTURE AS TO CORRELATING FMS COMPANY PLANS AND OUR CLRNCS.

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.