After landing mwcr, A320 flight crew are advised they executed the wrong approach procedure. Sound alike fix names are advised as contributing to confusion as well as language barrier.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	540958
Time
Date	200203
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mwcr.airport
State Reference	FO
Altitude	msl single value : 17000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival star : goran
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : tys.tower
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 150
ASRS Report	540958
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew Other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Chart Or Publication Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Gcm (mwcr) ATIS stated arrival and approach in use, but was unreadable. We understood and replied to the controller after initial contact to go direct gcm, then the visual to runway 8. He thought we were doing the goran transition to the visual runway 8. After landing, he asked us what our clearance limit was. We told him gcm, to which he replied he had given us goran. He then told us it is a common mistake and that they keep a log of these types of events. We (us and the controller) agreed the names gcm and goran are too similar sounding. The problem with the mistake we made is that gcm is a non radar environment and departing aircraft could potentially be hazardous to the route we took. Solution: make the ATIS clrer, change the goran intersection's name to something that is phonetically different from gcm.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER LNDG MWCR, A320 FLC ARE ADVISED THEY EXECUTED THE WRONG APCH PROC. SOUND ALIKE FIX NAMES ARE ADVISED AS CONTRIBUTING TO CONFUSION AS WELL AS LANGUAGE BARRIER.

Narrative: GCM (MWCR) ATIS STATED ARR AND APCH IN USE, BUT WAS UNREADABLE. WE UNDERSTOOD AND REPLIED TO THE CTLR AFTER INITIAL CONTACT TO GO DIRECT GCM, THEN THE VISUAL TO RWY 8. HE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE GORAN TRANSITION TO THE VISUAL RWY 8. AFTER LNDG, HE ASKED US WHAT OUR CLRNC LIMIT WAS. WE TOLD HIM GCM, TO WHICH HE REPLIED HE HAD GIVEN US GORAN. HE THEN TOLD US IT IS A COMMON MISTAKE AND THAT THEY KEEP A LOG OF THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. WE (US AND THE CTLR) AGREED THE NAMES GCM AND GORAN ARE TOO SIMILAR SOUNDING. THE PROB WITH THE MISTAKE WE MADE IS THAT GCM IS A NON RADAR ENVIRONMENT AND DEPARTING ACFT COULD POTENTIALLY BE HAZARDOUS TO THE RTE WE TOOK. SOLUTION: MAKE THE ATIS CLRER, CHANGE THE GORAN INTXN'S NAME TO SOMETHING THAT IS PHONETICALLY DIFFERENT FROM GCM.

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.