Narrative:

Our aircraft was cleared to the destination airport (rdu) via an assigned arrival (buzzy 6). Before reaching the last fix/intersection (buzzy) prior to the clearance limit (rdu) on the assigned arrival; the pilots were told to expect the visual approach to a specific runway (runway 23L); for which the ILS was notamed OTS. The pilot entered the data for the GPS approach to the assigned runway into the aircraft's FMS. The pilot made the error of entering the data into the FMS in a position prior to the clearance limit for the arrival procedure which; upon activation; made the GPS approach procedure activate prior to reaching the assigned clearance limit. The difference in flying to the IAF instead of the assigned clearance limit (the destination airport) caused a course deviation of approximately 10 degrees (to go from buzzy to the IAF instead of going from buzzy to the airport); which would have caused our aircraft to bypass the clearance limit (the destination airport) by approximately 5-7 mi if it had been flown entirely without correction. The FMS/EFIS performed correctly; and both pilots failed to notice that the correct turn had been missed in order to proceed on the assigned routing to the assigned clearance limit. Instead; our aircraft proceeded to the GPS coordinate/IAF that had been entered into the erroneous location in the FMS. The approach controller challenged the aircraft by asking if it was flying an assigned heading or if it was on the assigned procedure. The pilot (immediately realizing the input error) replied by stating that it was on the procedure; and was turning presently; and commenced a turn toward the assigned clearance limit/airport. The controller replied by assigning a heading for the visual approach (to the same runway previously assigned); and idented local traffic for our aircraft (none of which posed any conflicts). The balance of the flight proceeded without any other errors or issues.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C560 FLT CREW MISPROGRAMS IAP IN FMS. TRACK DEV RESULTS.

Narrative: OUR ACFT WAS CLRED TO THE DEST ARPT (RDU) VIA AN ASSIGNED ARR (BUZZY 6). BEFORE REACHING THE LAST FIX/INTXN (BUZZY) PRIOR TO THE CLRNC LIMIT (RDU) ON THE ASSIGNED ARR; THE PLTS WERE TOLD TO EXPECT THE VISUAL APCH TO A SPECIFIC RWY (RWY 23L); FOR WHICH THE ILS WAS NOTAMED OTS. THE PLT ENTERED THE DATA FOR THE GPS APCH TO THE ASSIGNED RWY INTO THE ACFT'S FMS. THE PLT MADE THE ERROR OF ENTERING THE DATA INTO THE FMS IN A POS PRIOR TO THE CLRNC LIMIT FOR THE ARR PROC WHICH; UPON ACTIVATION; MADE THE GPS APCH PROC ACTIVATE PRIOR TO REACHING THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT. THE DIFFERENCE IN FLYING TO THE IAF INSTEAD OF THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT (THE DEST ARPT) CAUSED A COURSE DEV OF APPROX 10 DEGS (TO GO FROM BUZZY TO THE IAF INSTEAD OF GOING FROM BUZZY TO THE ARPT); WHICH WOULD HAVE CAUSED OUR ACFT TO BYPASS THE CLRNC LIMIT (THE DEST ARPT) BY APPROX 5-7 MI IF IT HAD BEEN FLOWN ENTIRELY WITHOUT CORRECTION. THE FMS/EFIS PERFORMED CORRECTLY; AND BOTH PLTS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE CORRECT TURN HAD BEEN MISSED IN ORDER TO PROCEED ON THE ASSIGNED ROUTING TO THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT. INSTEAD; OUR ACFT PROCEEDED TO THE GPS COORDINATE/IAF THAT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO THE ERRONEOUS LOCATION IN THE FMS. THE APCH CTLR CHALLENGED THE ACFT BY ASKING IF IT WAS FLYING AN ASSIGNED HDG OR IF IT WAS ON THE ASSIGNED PROC. THE PLT (IMMEDIATELY REALIZING THE INPUT ERROR) REPLIED BY STATING THAT IT WAS ON THE PROC; AND WAS TURNING PRESENTLY; AND COMMENCED A TURN TOWARD THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT/ARPT. THE CTLR REPLIED BY ASSIGNING A HDG FOR THE VISUAL APCH (TO THE SAME RWY PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED); AND IDENTED LCL TFC FOR OUR ACFT (NONE OF WHICH POSED ANY CONFLICTS). THE BAL OF THE FLT PROCEEDED WITHOUT ANY OTHER ERRORS OR ISSUES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.