 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Medium large transport crew had track deviation because the FMC programmed route was different from the ATC cleared route.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 508647 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200104 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | navaid : cqy.vortac |
| State Reference | TX |
| Altitude | msl single value : 31000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zfw.artcc tower : zzz.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | cruise : level |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | inflight encounter : weather inflight encounter other non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure non adherence : company policies non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued advisory flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course flight crew : became reoriented none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Company Weather Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Upon receipt of flight release, I noticed that dispatch had given us an unusual routing to mke for WX avoidance. The release and the flight plan both indicated routing that departed iah over leona (LOA), cedar creek (cqy), ranger (fuz), J25 tulsa, etc. Upon receipt of the pre departure clearance, both of us reviewed the discussed the unusual routing to mke, but neither of us noticed that ATC had changed our third fix. They had changed ranger (fuz) to bonham (byp). After crossing our second fix (cqy), we turned left toward byp. After conversation with the ATC controller and re-reading our pre departure clearance twice more, we discovered the difference between our dispatch/fpr and the changed pre departure clearance routing. Pre departure clearance's have helped reduce radio traffic and in some ways reduced pilot workload, but I have some criticism of the current system. 1) pre departure clearance formats are not standardized from city to city. 2) pre departure clearance's can contain 2 different routings. 3) pre departure clearance's do not clearly identify changes made to filed flight plans. In yrs passed, controllers would have used wording that pointed out changes in routing, ie, 'cleared as filed except....' why can't pre departure clearance's use the same error managing techniques? Why not just say, 'cleared as filed except...' right on the pre departure clearance? The error we made was unnecessary!
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MLG CREW HAD TRACK DEV BECAUSE THE FMC PROGRAMMED RTE WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE ATC CLRED RTE.
Narrative: UPON RECEIPT OF FLT RELEASE, I NOTICED THAT DISPATCH HAD GIVEN US AN UNUSUAL ROUTING TO MKE FOR WX AVOIDANCE. THE RELEASE AND THE FLT PLAN BOTH INDICATED ROUTING THAT DEPARTED IAH OVER LEONA (LOA), CEDAR CREEK (CQY), RANGER (FUZ), J25 TULSA, ETC. UPON RECEIPT OF THE PDC, BOTH OF US REVIEWED THE DISCUSSED THE UNUSUAL ROUTING TO MKE, BUT NEITHER OF US NOTICED THAT ATC HAD CHANGED OUR THIRD FIX. THEY HAD CHANGED RANGER (FUZ) TO BONHAM (BYP). AFTER XING OUR SECOND FIX (CQY), WE TURNED L TOWARD BYP. AFTER CONVERSATION WITH THE ATC CTLR AND RE-READING OUR PDC TWICE MORE, WE DISCOVERED THE DIFFERENCE BTWN OUR DISPATCH/FPR AND THE CHANGED PDC ROUTING. PDC'S HAVE HELPED REDUCE RADIO TFC AND IN SOME WAYS REDUCED PLT WORKLOAD, BUT I HAVE SOME CRITICISM OF THE CURRENT SYS. 1) PDC FORMATS ARE NOT STANDARDIZED FROM CITY TO CITY. 2) PDC'S CAN CONTAIN 2 DIFFERENT ROUTINGS. 3) PDC'S DO NOT CLRLY IDENT CHANGES MADE TO FILED FLT PLANS. IN YRS PASSED, CTLRS WOULD HAVE USED WORDING THAT POINTED OUT CHANGES IN ROUTING, IE, 'CLRED AS FILED EXCEPT....' WHY CAN'T PDC'S USE THE SAME ERROR MANAGING TECHNIQUES? WHY NOT JUST SAY, 'CLRED AS FILED EXCEPT...' RIGHT ON THE PDC? THE ERROR WE MADE WAS UNNECESSARY!
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.