Narrative:

In addition to previously mentioned suggestions regarding pilot advisories and checks and balances; reminding pilots that comparing all flight plan release paperwork waypoint designations; latitudes/longitudes; and bearings/distances to various charts including departure; en route; terminal; etc; and to navigation database in use for navigation is useful as a check against printer quality legibility. Depending upon flight plan printer/ACARS printer quality the O and Q waypoint designations KU51O and KU51Q can be misinterpreted. Other considerations include daylight versus nighttime conditions and available cockpit lighting. There may be an approximately 100 mile difference between waypoints KU51O and KU51Q. Consideration should be given to adding a message to the flight plan release for this particular flight/route regarding KU51O versus KU51Q specifically and this type of problem generally and adding a message on all flight plan releases highlighting and emphasizing the existence of this type of potential problem. Consideration should be given to completely eliminating O and Q and/or any other possible conflicting waypoint designations from this relatively new waypoint designation system. Also; full route ACARS pre departure clearance's and verbally issued clrnces versus abbreviated ACARS pre departure clearance's and verbally issued clrncs could help identify possible errors/misinterpretations from flight plan release paperwork. Improving flight plan release printer quality system wide would be helpful.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 PLT COMMENTS THAT IMPROVING PRINTER/ACARS QUALITY MAY REDUCE CREW'S FLT PLAN READING ERRORS WHEN THE LETTERS O AND Q SPECIFICALLY OR OTHER SIMILAR CHARACTERS ARE MISINTERPRETED.

Narrative: IN ADDITION TO PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SUGGESTIONS REGARDING PLT ADVISORIES AND CHKS AND BALANCES; REMINDING PLTS THAT COMPARING ALL FLT PLAN RELEASE PAPERWORK WAYPOINT DESIGNATIONS; LATITUDES/LONGITUDES; AND BEARINGS/DISTANCES TO VARIOUS CHARTS INCLUDING DEP; ENRTE; TERMINAL; ETC; AND TO NAV DATABASE IN USE FOR NAVIGATION IS USEFUL AS A CHK AGAINST PRINTER QUALITY LEGIBILITY. DEPENDING UPON FLT PLAN PRINTER/ACARS PRINTER QUALITY THE O AND Q WAYPOINT DESIGNATIONS KU51O AND KU51Q CAN BE MISINTERPRETED. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDE DAYLIGHT VERSUS NIGHTTIME CONDITIONS AND AVAILABLE COCKPIT LIGHTING. THERE MAY BE AN APPROX 100 MILE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAYPOINTS KU51O AND KU51Q. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ADDING A MESSAGE TO THE FLT PLAN RELEASE FOR THIS PARTICULAR FLT/RTE REGARDING KU51O VERSUS KU51Q SPECIFICALLY AND THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM GENERALLY AND ADDING A MESSAGE ON ALL FLT PLAN RELEASES HIGHLIGHTING AND EMPHASIZING THE EXISTENCE OF THIS TYPE OF POTENTIAL PROBLEM. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATING O AND Q AND/OR ANY OTHER POSSIBLE CONFLICTING WAYPOINT DESIGNATIONS FROM THIS RELATIVELY NEW WAYPOINT DESIGNATION SYSTEM. ALSO; FULL RTE ACARS PDC'S AND VERBALLY ISSUED CLRNCES VERSUS ABBREVIATED ACARS PDC'S AND VERBALLY ISSUED CLRNCS COULD HELP IDENTIFY POSSIBLE ERRORS/MISINTERPRETATIONS FROM FLT PLAN RELEASE PAPERWORK. IMPROVING FLT PLAN RELEASE PRINTER QUALITY SYSTEM WIDE WOULD BE HELPFUL.

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.