ZLC controller described an unexpected course change by an air carrier; the reporter expressing conc...

Narrative:

An A320 was enroute on course to KU45Q when I; the ZLC R46 controller took the hand off from ZLA R33. The A320 made an unexpected turn right of course. I called ZDV R23 to make a point out prior to the aircraft violating ZDV's airspace. ZDV sector 23 controller called radar contact. I then asked the A320 what fix he was navigating to when I think the pilot responded with KU45S (KU54S was the next fix in the airbus' flight plan). I called ZDV sector 23 and coordinated that the airbus was direct KU54S. After talking to several controllers I discovered this has happened several times before. The two fixes KU45S and KU54S are only 100 miles apart; but are too easily mis-entered and misheard on a read back/coordination call. When KU54S is the fix in the NAS flight plan after KU45Q; and the aircraft has KU45S entered into autopilot; the flight plan will not auto flash to ZDV sector 23 and the controller only has 60 seconds to realize that the aircraft is off course (and that the issue is not related to 'vector wobble' eram discrepancies) before violating ZDV's airspace. The 'K' fix naming convention needs to be changed. It is too dangerous having two fixes with such a similar naming convention in such close proximity.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLC Controller described an unexpected course change by an air carrier; the reporter expressing concern regarding the similar 'K' fix naming convention as problematic.

Narrative: An A320 was enroute on course to KU45Q when I; the ZLC R46 Controller took the hand off from ZLA R33. The A320 made an unexpected turn right of course. I called ZDV R23 to make a point out prior to the aircraft violating ZDV's airspace. ZDV Sector 23 Controller called RADAR Contact. I then asked the A320 what fix he was navigating to when I think the pilot responded with KU45S (KU54S was the next fix in the Airbus' flight plan). I called ZDV Sector 23 and coordinated that the Airbus was direct KU54S. After talking to several controllers I discovered this has happened several times before. The two fixes KU45S and KU54S are only 100 miles apart; but are too easily mis-entered and misheard on a read back/coordination call. When KU54S is the fix in the NAS flight plan after KU45Q; and the aircraft has KU45S entered into autopilot; the flight plan will not auto flash to ZDV Sector 23 and the controller only has 60 seconds to realize that the aircraft is off course (and that the issue is not related to 'vector wobble' ERAM discrepancies) before violating ZDV's airspace. The 'K' fix naming convention needs to be changed. It is too dangerous having two fixes with such a similar naming convention in such close proximity.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.

Attributes
ACN	1000476
Time
Date	201203
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	ZLC.ARTCC
State Reference	UT
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Cruise
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Enroute
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

ZLC controller described an unexpected course change by an air carrier; the reporter expressing concern regarding the similar 'K' fix naming convention as problematic.