Narrative:

After pushback flight had to return to blocks for maintenance. Crew could not find any guidance or procedures in flight operating manual (fom) or bulletins for returning to gate. The only thing we found in the ACARS menus was 'returning to blocks message.' it was sent but we were not sure what; if anything that accomplished. The questions and issues that came up were: 1. When we first accomplished 'auto init' of the ACARS after arriving at the aircraft the ete showed xa:16 even though release 1 had an ete of xa:13. I have never seen it come up different. Release 1 was the current release but can release 1 somehow be updated/changed without the crew knowing it? 2. How to set up the ACARS to properly to accurately show a return to blocks and associated times in 'flight data.' after we blocked in there was no data in any of the 'flight data' ACARS pages. There is no guidance/procedures we could find. 3. Aircraft would not 'auto init' again after return to gate. Data fields were now empty. All the entries had to be manually entered. There is no guidance or procedures we could find. 4. No fuel was added; no passengers or cargo boarded or taken off; and only maintenance work accomplished on cargo door frame. We were at the gate for about 20 minutes. New weights apparently are required after any 'return to blocks.' is this anytime; or just when a cargo and/or passenger door has been opened? I suppose this requirement may be buried somewhere in the fom but we were unable to find it. 5. After returning to the gate the 'release sequence starts over' according to dispatch and a new flight plan is required. There is no guidance or procedures we could find in the fom. 6. What does it really mean to the crew that the 'release sequence starts over?' I suppose a discussion on this issue may appear somewhere in the fom but we were unable to find it. 7. Our final weight had decreased by 10;000 # from planned weight. We were still legal based upon the fuel requirements based on a heavier aircraft and our original release (rls 01). Normally it ties up the ACARS for a while to get a whole new flight plan printed and we asked for revised fuel numbers based upon the lighter takeoff weight to ensure we would be legal. We received a new flight plan (still release 1) based on revised weights. Release verification still showed 'rls 01' as the current release but we did a thorough review of the new flight plan anyway. Our new flight plan was based on different dispatch where our original flight plan was a serially lower numbered release. Yet it was still 'rls 01?' how much can an flight plan change and not have the associated release number change? How is a crew really to know they are working off the correct release? 8. What does it mean that the 'rtg' changed? (Routing remained unchanged on new flight plan). Should it matter to the crew? If there is guidance or procedures dealing with returning to the gate in the fom or bulletin information it is not obvious and there appears to be nothing in any index to find it. A 'return to the gate' can add a lot to the crew's workload. We have an electronic checklist (buried under 4 levels of menus) for 'runway change' but there is nothing anywhere dealing with a 'return to the gate.' obviously there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed with a 'return to the gate' that a crew could easily miss or where the crew could be misled. I would suggest that there needs to be a procedure/guidance in the fom for 'return to the gate.' I would also suggest that when there are significant changes to an existing flight plan that the associated release number be changed. Our carrier is currently undertaking significant changes to procedures and flight planning products with inadequate training or support for anything other than normal operations. At a minimum it should be providing accurate and user friendly written documentation on procedures; limitations; and requirements to the crews. I have no doubt that there will be future preventable operational errors wrongly blamed upon the crews when the cause is really systemic.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier pilot reported confusion about a new Company procedure which inadequately described the crew's procedures for restoring flight plan and FMC data after they dropped out during a return to the gate for maintenance.

Narrative: After pushback flight had to return to blocks for maintenance. Crew could not find any guidance or procedures in Flight Operating Manual (FOM) or Bulletins for returning to gate. The only thing we found in the ACARS menus was 'Returning to Blocks Message.' It was sent but we were not sure what; if anything that accomplished. The questions and issues that came up were: 1. When we first accomplished 'Auto Init' of the ACARS after arriving at the aircraft the ETE showed XA:16 even though Release 1 had an ETE of XA:13. I have never seen it come up different. Release 1 was the current release but can Release 1 somehow be updated/changed without the crew knowing it? 2. How to set up the ACARS to properly to accurately show a return to blocks and associated times in 'Flight Data.' After we blocked in there was no data in any of the 'Flight Data' ACARS pages. There is no guidance/procedures we could find. 3. Aircraft would not 'Auto Init' again after return to gate. Data fields were now empty. All the entries had to be manually entered. There is no guidance or procedures we could find. 4. No fuel was added; no passengers or cargo boarded or taken off; and only maintenance work accomplished on cargo door frame. We were at the gate for about 20 minutes. New weights apparently are required after any 'return to blocks.' Is this anytime; or just when a cargo and/or passenger door has been opened? I suppose this requirement may be buried somewhere in the FOM but we were unable to find it. 5. After returning to the gate the 'release sequence starts over' according to dispatch and a new flight plan is required. There is no guidance or procedures we could find in the FOM. 6. What does it really mean to the crew that the 'release sequence starts over?' I suppose a discussion on this issue may appear somewhere in the FOM but we were unable to find it. 7. Our final weight had decreased by 10;000 # from planned weight. We were still legal based upon the fuel requirements based on a heavier aircraft and our original release (RLS 01). Normally it ties up the ACARS for a while to get a whole new flight plan printed and we asked for revised fuel numbers based upon the lighter takeoff weight to ensure we would be legal. We received a new flight plan (still release 1) based on revised weights. Release verification still showed 'RLS 01' as the current release but we did a thorough review of the new flight plan anyway. Our new flight plan was based on different dispatch where our original flight plan was a serially lower numbered release. Yet it was still 'RLS 01?' How much can an flight plan change and not have the associated release number change? How is a crew really to know they are working off the correct release? 8. What does it mean that the 'RTG' changed? (routing remained unchanged on new flight plan). Should it matter to the crew? If there is guidance or procedures dealing with returning to the gate in the FOM or Bulletin information it is not obvious and there appears to be nothing in any index to find it. A 'return to the gate' can add a lot to the crew's workload. We have an electronic checklist (buried under 4 levels of menus) for 'Runway Change' but there is nothing anywhere dealing with a 'return to the gate.' Obviously there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed with a 'return to the gate' that a crew could easily miss or where the crew could be misled. I would suggest that there needs to be a procedure/guidance in the FOM for 'return to the gate.' I would also suggest that when there are significant changes to an existing flight plan that the associated release number be changed. Our Carrier is currently undertaking significant changes to procedures and flight planning products with inadequate training or support for anything other than normal operations. At a minimum it should be providing accurate and user friendly written documentation on procedures; limitations; and requirements to the crews. I have no doubt that there will be future preventable operational errors wrongly blamed upon the crews when the cause is really systemic.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.