|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : cle.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||A320|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 250|
flight time total : 8300
flight time type : 4500
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
non adherence : published procedure
non adherence : far
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||controller : issued advisory|
flight crew : overrode automation
|Consequence||faa : reviewed incident with flight crew|
ATC Human Performance
Chart Or Publication
|Primary Problem||Chart Or Publication|
|Chart||sid : armst|
All of the sids from cle are very confusing. The departure that the FMGC builds does not agree with depiction on the sids. The verbal directions at the bottom of the sids also do not agree with the depictions. The solid black line drawn on the depictions leads me to believe that you are to fly that course as shown but the verbal instructions conflict with the picture. I would expect a dotted line for proceeding on an assigned heading and not a solid black line. Also; there are no specific directions for a departure from runway 6C. The FMGC built a departure that bypassed djb and went directly to huddz. Clearance del was queried about these discrepancies and they seemed to be aware of some but not all the problems with the sids that were in my possession.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that this flight was his second in 2 weeks after nearly 5 years of not having operated from cle. On this; his second trip; the first exchange he had was with climb clearance delivery concerning the fact the flight was cleared for departure on runway 6C which is not depicted on the SID. The controller stated that was ok because runway 6C was not going to be in service much longer. Reporter stated that the lack of a runway initial climb definition made them not legal for takeoff from that runway. The second issue for the crew was an FMGC anomaly that did not show djb on the nd route even though it is the first fix on the departure routing. The crew manually selected djb and inserted it on the routing page. This same anomaly occurred the previous week on this same routing. The reporter expressed some confusion about the airport textual descriptions. He had forgotten that cle was hopkins international and initially read the text for burke lakefront. He realized his error early enough to correct it but believes the description should be cleveland-hopkins international as with two of the other sids.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN A320 PLT ON THE CLE RWY 6C AMRST 1 SID RPTS FMGC OMITS DJB AS A RTE FIX AND PROCEEDS DIRECTLY TO HUDDZ. RWY 6C NOT GIVEN TEXTUAL DEP DESCRIPTION.
Narrative: ALL OF THE SIDS FROM CLE ARE VERY CONFUSING. THE DEP THAT THE FMGC BUILDS DOES NOT AGREE WITH DEPICTION ON THE SIDS. THE VERBAL DIRECTIONS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SIDS ALSO DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DEPICTIONS. THE SOLID BLACK LINE DRAWN ON THE DEPICTIONS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE TO FLY THAT COURSE AS SHOWN BUT THE VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS CONFLICT WITH THE PICTURE. I WOULD EXPECT A DOTTED LINE FOR PROCEEDING ON AN ASSIGNED HEADING AND NOT A SOLID BLACK LINE. ALSO; THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR A DEP FROM RWY 6C. THE FMGC BUILT A DEP THAT BYPASSED DJB AND WENT DIRECTLY TO HUDDZ. CLRNC DEL WAS QUERIED ABOUT THESE DISCREPANCIES AND THEY SEEMED TO BE AWARE OF SOME BUT NOT ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SIDS THAT WERE IN MY POSSESSION.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THIS FLT WAS HIS SECOND IN 2 WKS AFTER NEARLY 5 YEARS OF NOT HAVING OPERATED FROM CLE. ON THIS; HIS SECOND TRIP; THE FIRST EXCHANGE HE HAD WAS WITH CLB CLRNC DELIVERY CONCERNING THE FACT THE FLT WAS CLRED FOR DEP ON RWY 6C WHICH IS NOT DEPICTED ON THE SID. THE CTLR STATED THAT WAS OK BECAUSE RWY 6C WAS NOT GOING TO BE IN SVC MUCH LONGER. RPTR STATED THAT THE LACK OF A RWY INITIAL CLB DEFINITION MADE THEM NOT LEGAL FOR TKOF FROM THAT RWY. THE SECOND ISSUE FOR THE CREW WAS AN FMGC ANOMALY THAT DID NOT SHOW DJB ON THE ND RTE EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE FIRST FIX ON THE DEP ROUTING. THE CREW MANUALLY SELECTED DJB AND INSERTED IT ON THE ROUTING PAGE. THIS SAME ANOMALY OCCURRED THE PREVIOUS WEEK ON THIS SAME ROUTING. THE RPTR EXPRESSED SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE ARPT TEXTUAL DESCRIPTIONS. HE HAD FORGOTTEN THAT CLE WAS HOPKINS INTL AND INITIALLY READ THE TEXT FOR BURKE LAKEFRONT. HE REALIZED HIS ERROR EARLY ENOUGH TO CORRECT IT BUT BELIEVES THE DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL AS WITH TWO OF THE OTHER SIDS.
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.