Narrative:

I was captain and PF. I went 'off' to talk with dispatch so I xferred aircraft control and radios to first officer. While off, we received a new route from center controller. New route was direct to alamosa VOR, direct gallup VOR, then a published arrival to destination. First officer programmed FMC and acknowledged new route. At about the same time, I 'returned,' the controller asked us where we were going. First officer repeated clearance. It was at this time we realized he had put the wrong VOR identify into the FMC. We put the correct point in and proceeded uneventfully. No conflict resulted. I asked the first officer about the wrong point, as to whether he had mis-typed or just used the wrong identify. He stated that he thought that the identify was alm (which is alamogordo NDB) and because the distance and heading looked correct, he did not verify the identify on the chart. Contributing factors: 1) alamosa VOR (ALS) was not on our original flight plan. When given this clearance, we were still some 900 mi away, still using the high 3/4 chart, not the 1/2 chart. 2) obviously, we still should have verified the identify, but it would have been very helpful and would have prevented this situation if the controller had given us the identify as well. Ie, 'cleared direct alamosa, alfa, lima, sierra,' etc, when the new route was issued and not on our flight plan. Some controllers use this excellent technique. 3) our FMC does not differentiate between a VOR and an NDB with a 3 letter identify. 4) the fact that these stations are fairly close together because of the fact the route changed little and distance appeared correct, no 'red flags' appeared. A large heading/distance difference would raise them.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 CAPT DID NOT CATCH HIS FO'S MISTAKE, IN ZKC'S AIRSPACE, WHEN HE USED THE WRONG IDENT FOR ALAMOSA IN THE FMC, CAUSING A TRACK DEV.

Narrative: I WAS CAPT AND PF. I WENT 'OFF' TO TALK WITH DISPATCH SO I XFERRED ACFT CTL AND RADIOS TO FO. WHILE OFF, WE RECEIVED A NEW RTE FROM CTR CTLR. NEW RTE WAS DIRECT TO ALAMOSA VOR, DIRECT GALLUP VOR, THEN A PUBLISHED ARR TO DEST. FO PROGRAMMED FMC AND ACKNOWLEDGED NEW RTE. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, I 'RETURNED,' THE CTLR ASKED US WHERE WE WERE GOING. FO REPEATED CLRNC. IT WAS AT THIS TIME WE REALIZED HE HAD PUT THE WRONG VOR IDENT INTO THE FMC. WE PUT THE CORRECT POINT IN AND PROCEEDED UNEVENTFULLY. NO CONFLICT RESULTED. I ASKED THE FO ABOUT THE WRONG POINT, AS TO WHETHER HE HAD MIS-TYPED OR JUST USED THE WRONG IDENT. HE STATED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THE IDENT WAS ALM (WHICH IS ALAMOGORDO NDB) AND BECAUSE THE DISTANCE AND HDG LOOKED CORRECT, HE DID NOT VERIFY THE IDENT ON THE CHART. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) ALAMOSA VOR (ALS) WAS NOT ON OUR ORIGINAL FLT PLAN. WHEN GIVEN THIS CLRNC, WE WERE STILL SOME 900 MI AWAY, STILL USING THE HIGH 3/4 CHART, NOT THE 1/2 CHART. 2) OBVIOUSLY, WE STILL SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE IDENT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS SIT IF THE CTLR HAD GIVEN US THE IDENT AS WELL. IE, 'CLRED DIRECT ALAMOSA, ALFA, LIMA, SIERRA,' ETC, WHEN THE NEW RTE WAS ISSUED AND NOT ON OUR FLT PLAN. SOME CTLRS USE THIS EXCELLENT TECHNIQUE. 3) OUR FMC DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BTWN A VOR AND AN NDB WITH A 3 LETTER IDENT. 4) THE FACT THAT THESE STATIONS ARE FAIRLY CLOSE TOGETHER BECAUSE OF THE FACT THE RTE CHANGED LITTLE AND DISTANCE APPEARED CORRECT, NO 'RED FLAGS' APPEARED. A LARGE HDG/DISTANCE DIFFERENCE WOULD RAISE THEM.

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.