Flight crew of medium large transport deviates from filed routing.

Attributes
ACN	113869
Time
Date	198906
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : yzp
State Reference	BC
Altitude	msl bound lower : 31000 msl bound upper : 31000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute airway : hl501
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 7000
ASRS Report	113869
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 220 flight time total : 14000
ASRS Report	113962
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance non adherence : far other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

En route to anc flying an extra section, light haul and ferry from sea to anc. After leaving yzp on HL501 to bka, vancouver ARTCC asked us if we showed our clearance to be fried, eeden, and snout. Knowing that more of our medium large transport's are over-water equipped, my first response was something like, I don't think so 'cause we can't go that way. He then asked me again if indeed we were filed over fried, eeden, and snout. When I checked the filed routing, I then realized for the first time that dispatch had indeed filed us incorrectly. I told the controller then that yes indeed we were filed over water, but couldn't go that way. He said fine, you're now cleared to anc via direct bka, J133 anc. At the time this course deviation was noticed by vancouver, we were almost at the fir boundary with anc ARTCC and I estimate we were off course by almost 25 NM. I called dispatch immediately upon arrival in anc. I gather from the conversation(south) I've had with them that the computer filing system they use does not necessarily give the same flight plan with the routing filed, or even assures the correct flight plan for the equipment necessary for that particular routing. So it's possible to get one routing and be filed on another. In my case, I was given and over-water flight plan and filed over water. But to actually fly that routing would have been in violation. There are several extenuating circumstances here. 1) the first officer and I were given a very short notice for the flight. We were told to bypass dispatch and go directly to operations as they wanted the aircraft in anc as soon as possible! 2) I've never been filed over water in the medium large transport in over the 5 yrs I've been on the aircraft. Thus, I did not suspect or closely monitor the routing on the flight plan. Normally, the only difference in routing is from sea to yzt, i.e., sea.tou.HL501.yzp or sea to yzt.J523.yzp. 3) the dispatcher also failed to monitor the flight plan issued by the computer.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MLG DEVIATES FROM FILED ROUTING.

Narrative: ENRTE TO ANC FLYING AN EXTRA SECTION, LIGHT HAUL AND FERRY FROM SEA TO ANC. AFTER LEAVING YZP ON HL501 TO BKA, VANCOUVER ARTCC ASKED US IF WE SHOWED OUR CLRNC TO BE FRIED, EEDEN, AND SNOUT. KNOWING THAT MORE OF OUR MLG'S ARE OVER-WATER EQUIPPED, MY FIRST RESPONSE WAS SOMETHING LIKE, I DON'T THINK SO 'CAUSE WE CAN'T GO THAT WAY. HE THEN ASKED ME AGAIN IF INDEED WE WERE FILED OVER FRIED, EEDEN, AND SNOUT. WHEN I CHECKED THE FILED ROUTING, I THEN REALIZED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT DISPATCH HAD INDEED FILED US INCORRECTLY. I TOLD THE CTLR THEN THAT YES INDEED WE WERE FILED OVER WATER, BUT COULDN'T GO THAT WAY. HE SAID FINE, YOU'RE NOW CLRED TO ANC VIA DIRECT BKA, J133 ANC. AT THE TIME THIS COURSE DEVIATION WAS NOTICED BY VANCOUVER, WE WERE ALMOST AT THE FIR BOUNDARY WITH ANC ARTCC AND I ESTIMATE WE WERE OFF COURSE BY ALMOST 25 NM. I CALLED DISPATCH IMMEDIATELY UPON ARR IN ANC. I GATHER FROM THE CONVERSATION(S) I'VE HAD WITH THEM THAT THE COMPUTER FILING SYSTEM THEY USE DOES NOT NECESSARILY GIVE THE SAME FLT PLAN WITH THE ROUTING FILED, OR EVEN ASSURES THE CORRECT FLT PLAN FOR THE EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THAT PARTICULAR ROUTING. SO IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET ONE ROUTING AND BE FILED ON ANOTHER. IN MY CASE, I WAS GIVEN AND OVER-WATER FLT PLAN AND FILED OVER WATER. BUT TO ACTUALLY FLY THAT ROUTING WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE. 1) THE F/O AND I WERE GIVEN A VERY SHORT NOTICE FOR THE FLT. WE WERE TOLD TO BYPASS DISPATCH AND GO DIRECTLY TO OPERATIONS AS THEY WANTED THE ACFT IN ANC ASAP! 2) I'VE NEVER BEEN FILED OVER WATER IN THE MLG IN OVER THE 5 YRS I'VE BEEN ON THE ACFT. THUS, I DID NOT SUSPECT OR CLOSELY MONITOR THE ROUTING ON THE FLT PLAN. NORMALLY, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN ROUTING IS FROM SEA TO YZT, I.E., SEA.TOU.HL501.YZP OR SEA TO YZT.J523.YZP. 3) THE DISPATCHER ALSO FAILED TO MONITOR THE FLT PLAN ISSUED BY THE COMPUTER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.