Narrative:

We were inbound on J64 into ft wayne VOR (117.8) approximately 62 NM east when ATC called and vectored us 30 degrees right. We asked if this was for traffic and controller said no, it was to get us back on airway. We immediately checked our CDI's and when we saw they were centered, we checked to make sure the inbound course of 271 degrees was correct. It was. We asked ATC for clarification when he had the time. When he called back we told him our instruments showed us on centerline or within 1 degree and that at 60 NM that should put us within 1 mi of centerline. He said he showed us 8 NM south of centerline. He went on to say that the ft wayne VOR was notoriously weak. We thanked him and he switched us to another frequency, after clearing us direct to ft wayne. The new controller gave us an immediate vector to the right and gave an air carrier aircraft a vector also. He then gave the other air carrier jet a descent 'for traffic.' our TCASII showed that we passed about 10 NM abeam. It is recommended that the ft wayne VOR be checked and certified for accuracy and repaired as necessary. This was the last leg of the day and we had no reports of instrument error on our aircraft. We believe the ft wayne VOR may be weak or inaccurate. Supplemental information from acn 378474: it didn't seem like the controllers communicated with each other at all, it was like we surprised the second controller. It sounds like fwa signal is weak enough that this has happened before.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B727 CREW CLAIM OF NAVAID PROB WITH THE FWA VOR AND THE NEED FOR ATC TO VECTOR THEM TO 'ON COURSE.' QUOTES ARTCC RADAR CTLR AT ZAU OF SAYING THE 'FWA VOR WAS NOTORIOUSLY WEAK.' SECOND ZAU CTLR SEEMED SURPRISED AT THEIR THEN CORRECTED POS AND ISSUES DSCNT AND TURN TO OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC, A TURN FOR RPTR'S ACFT.

Narrative: WE WERE INBOUND ON J64 INTO FT WAYNE VOR (117.8) APPROX 62 NM E WHEN ATC CALLED AND VECTORED US 30 DEGS R. WE ASKED IF THIS WAS FOR TFC AND CTLR SAID NO, IT WAS TO GET US BACK ON AIRWAY. WE IMMEDIATELY CHKED OUR CDI'S AND WHEN WE SAW THEY WERE CTRED, WE CHKED TO MAKE SURE THE INBOUND COURSE OF 271 DEGS WAS CORRECT. IT WAS. WE ASKED ATC FOR CLARIFICATION WHEN HE HAD THE TIME. WHEN HE CALLED BACK WE TOLD HIM OUR INSTS SHOWED US ON CTRLINE OR WITHIN 1 DEG AND THAT AT 60 NM THAT SHOULD PUT US WITHIN 1 MI OF CTRLINE. HE SAID HE SHOWED US 8 NM S OF CTRLINE. HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE FT WAYNE VOR WAS NOTORIOUSLY WEAK. WE THANKED HIM AND HE SWITCHED US TO ANOTHER FREQ, AFTER CLRING US DIRECT TO FT WAYNE. THE NEW CTLR GAVE US AN IMMEDIATE VECTOR TO THE R AND GAVE AN ACR ACFT A VECTOR ALSO. HE THEN GAVE THE OTHER ACR JET A DSCNT 'FOR TFC.' OUR TCASII SHOWED THAT WE PASSED ABOUT 10 NM ABEAM. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE FT WAYNE VOR BE CHKED AND CERTIFIED FOR ACCURACY AND REPAIRED AS NECESSARY. THIS WAS THE LAST LEG OF THE DAY AND WE HAD NO RPTS OF INST ERROR ON OUR ACFT. WE BELIEVE THE FT WAYNE VOR MAY BE WEAK OR INACCURATE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 378474: IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE CTLRS COMMUNICATED WITH EACH OTHER AT ALL, IT WAS LIKE WE SURPRISED THE SECOND CTLR. IT SOUNDS LIKE FWA SIGNAL IS WEAK ENOUGH THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

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.