|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : den.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Controlling Facilities||tower : den.tower|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B757-200|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : takeoff roll|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 160|
flight time total : 14500
flight time type : 5490
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 200|
flight time total : 11000
flight time type : 2500
|Anomaly||non adherence : clearance|
non adherence : company policies
non adherence : published procedure
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Problem Areas||Flight Crew Human Performance|
Departed den after much confusion and miscom between the flight crew; dispatch; and den clearance delivery (ATC) concerning a revised segment of the pre departure clearance. May have inadvertently departed with an ATC clearance different than the routing in the amended dispatch release. After receiving the howgozit in-flight; noticed a difference in the routing versus the ATC received routing. We received the pre departure clearance with a revised segment changing the departure to the den 4 direct oal and notified dispatch with the change. Also questioned if method #1 still applicable. This also happened after a diversion the previous evening on our flight. The change was sent to dispatch; the data checked and we received a release via ACARS 'ok to depart and continue under method #1.' I was expecting the same answer based on our weight and routing being the same along with all the terrain considerations. Instead I received multiple messages that due to computer limitations are unable to flight plan that route either method #1 or #2. The flight was delayed trying to resolve the clearance issue and find a legal dispatch. We were told by clearance delivery that 99% of the time the filed plan of direct rif direct oal is revised to direct oal due to en route center restrs. Clearance delivery consulted with center to help us find alternative routing to send to dispatch. He mentioned that the center controller was aware of driftdown criteria. We were told that routing over laramie or alamosa were only acceptable alternatives and that information was relayed to dispatch. Dispatch advised us that ATC had also contacted them and they were refiling our flight plan. Rls 2 routing was ROCKI4 dbl J80 oal. We sat awaiting voice clearance and had to ask dispatch to refile again because den had not received a clearance. When contacted by clearance delivery; they said 'finally received your company filed flight plan' -- and gave us clearance as 'den 4 oal 10000 ft.' I mistakenly assumed this was the refiled company flight plan due to terminology used. In trying to get flight out for passenger connections; I did not request copy of new flight plan because it was so similar to our original routing (and knew terrain and fuel were adequate); but which would have shown discrepancy. Realized that this was a larger and more complicated problem than we were aware of after debriefing with dispatch and dispatch manager via telephone after flight. We discussed the need to be able to revise flight plans due to revised segments predep; but that limit prevents being able to flight plan on revised segments being issued by den. Was told that it is part of a complex situation concerning division of center sectors and that our databases are not programmed with the en route fixes used to prevent the conflicts. Was informed that this would be topic of discussion the next day with the ATC coordination to find a solution.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B757-200 TOOK OFF FROM DEN WITH MISMATCH BTWN ATC CLRNC AND COMPANY RELEASE.
Narrative: DEPARTED DEN AFTER MUCH CONFUSION AND MISCOM BTWN THE FLT CREW; DISPATCH; AND DEN CLRNC DELIVERY (ATC) CONCERNING A REVISED SEGMENT OF THE PDC. MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY DEPARTED WITH AN ATC CLRNC DIFFERENT THAN THE ROUTING IN THE AMENDED DISPATCH RELEASE. AFTER RECEIVING THE HOWGOZIT INFLT; NOTICED A DIFFERENCE IN THE ROUTING VERSUS THE ATC RECEIVED ROUTING. WE RECEIVED THE PDC WITH A REVISED SEGMENT CHANGING THE DEP TO THE DEN 4 DIRECT OAL AND NOTIFIED DISPATCH WITH THE CHANGE. ALSO QUESTIONED IF METHOD #1 STILL APPLICABLE. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AFTER A DIVERSION THE PREVIOUS EVENING ON OUR FLT. THE CHANGE WAS SENT TO DISPATCH; THE DATA CHKED AND WE RECEIVED A RELEASE VIA ACARS 'OK TO DEPART AND CONTINUE UNDER METHOD #1.' I WAS EXPECTING THE SAME ANSWER BASED ON OUR WT AND ROUTING BEING THE SAME ALONG WITH ALL THE TERRAIN CONSIDERATIONS. INSTEAD I RECEIVED MULTIPLE MESSAGES THAT DUE TO COMPUTER LIMITATIONS ARE UNABLE TO FLT PLAN THAT RTE EITHER METHOD #1 OR #2. THE FLT WAS DELAYED TRYING TO RESOLVE THE CLRNC ISSUE AND FIND A LEGAL DISPATCH. WE WERE TOLD BY CLRNC DELIVERY THAT 99% OF THE TIME THE FILED PLAN OF DIRECT RIF DIRECT OAL IS REVISED TO DIRECT OAL DUE TO ENRTE CTR RESTRS. CLRNC DELIVERY CONSULTED WITH CTR TO HELP US FIND ALTERNATIVE ROUTING TO SEND TO DISPATCH. HE MENTIONED THAT THE CTR CTLR WAS AWARE OF DRIFTDOWN CRITERIA. WE WERE TOLD THAT ROUTING OVER LARAMIE OR ALAMOSA WERE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THAT INFO WAS RELAYED TO DISPATCH. DISPATCH ADVISED US THAT ATC HAD ALSO CONTACTED THEM AND THEY WERE REFILING OUR FLT PLAN. RLS 2 ROUTING WAS ROCKI4 DBL J80 OAL. WE SAT AWAITING VOICE CLRNC AND HAD TO ASK DISPATCH TO REFILE AGAIN BECAUSE DEN HAD NOT RECEIVED A CLRNC. WHEN CONTACTED BY CLRNC DELIVERY; THEY SAID 'FINALLY RECEIVED YOUR COMPANY FILED FLT PLAN' -- AND GAVE US CLRNC AS 'DEN 4 OAL 10000 FT.' I MISTAKENLY ASSUMED THIS WAS THE REFILED COMPANY FLT PLAN DUE TO TERMINOLOGY USED. IN TRYING TO GET FLT OUT FOR PAX CONNECTIONS; I DID NOT REQUEST COPY OF NEW FLT PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS SO SIMILAR TO OUR ORIGINAL ROUTING (AND KNEW TERRAIN AND FUEL WERE ADEQUATE); BUT WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN DISCREPANCY. REALIZED THAT THIS WAS A LARGER AND MORE COMPLICATED PROB THAN WE WERE AWARE OF AFTER DEBRIEFING WITH DISPATCH AND DISPATCH MGR VIA TELEPHONE AFTER FLT. WE DISCUSSED THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO REVISE FLT PLANS DUE TO REVISED SEGMENTS PREDEP; BUT THAT LIMIT PREVENTS BEING ABLE TO FLT PLAN ON REVISED SEGMENTS BEING ISSUED BY DEN. WAS TOLD THAT IT IS PART OF A COMPLEX SITUATION CONCERNING DIVISION OF CTR SECTORS AND THAT OUR DATABASES ARE NOT PROGRAMMED WITH THE ENRTE FIXES USED TO PREVENT THE CONFLICTS. WAS INFORMED THAT THIS WOULD BE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION THE NEXT DAY WITH THE ATC COORD TO FIND A SOLUTION.
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.