Narrative:

After maintenance delay in munich we had a flight plan change from nat B to nat G. We received the appropriate paperwork and were filed accordingly. After contacting shanwick for our oceanic clearance 123.95 approximately 1 degree west long. He cleared us nat B, we requested G and were granted nat G FL350 mach .83 after 52N 15W and returned to brest control, which cleared us to 49N 08W then as filed. Reported 08W to brest control and switched to shanwick. Reported to shanwick 127.9 and advised them of going thru their airspace. He told us to clear it with shannon center and gave us frequency 135.6. Reported to shannon 09 degree west radio VHF prior to entering shannon airspace and told we were in radar contact and there was no problem. Selcaled at 13 degree west about transgression into shannon fir. We followed our cleared flight plan route, talked to everybody in advance of entering their airspace, advised them of the problem in exiting and then reentering a fir and were told that there was no problem with everyone knowing our route of flight. It seems odd no one realized there was a problem until after the transgression. The problem arose in the filing of the flight plan and since we didn't receive this until just prior to takeoff due to maintenance delay, the first officer did not have time to plot our course on chart. After airborne, he discovered the possible conflict and that's when we started talking to everybody to resolve the conflict. We were led to believe that the problem was solved until after we had transgressed the fir. The only solutions I see are to increase communication between centers or not allow takeoff until after the course has been plotted. As we read the regulations, due to the circumstances surrounding our maintenance delay we could wait until after airborne to plot the course.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IMPROPER ATC COORD EFFECTED BETWEEN SEPARATE CTL AREAS, FLT CREW AND FLT PLAN FILING AGENCY.

Narrative: AFTER MAINT DELAY IN MUNICH WE HAD A FLT PLAN CHANGE FROM NAT B TO NAT G. WE RECEIVED THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK AND WERE FILED ACCORDINGLY. AFTER CONTACTING SHANWICK FOR OUR OCEANIC CLRNC 123.95 APPROX 1 DEG W LONG. HE CLRED US NAT B, WE REQUESTED G AND WERE GRANTED NAT G FL350 MACH .83 AFTER 52N 15W AND RETURNED TO BREST CTL, WHICH CLRED US TO 49N 08W THEN AS FILED. REPORTED 08W TO BREST CTL AND SWITCHED TO SHANWICK. REPORTED TO SHANWICK 127.9 AND ADVISED THEM OF GOING THRU THEIR AIRSPACE. HE TOLD US TO CLEAR IT WITH SHANNON CENTER AND GAVE US FREQ 135.6. REPORTED TO SHANNON 09 DEG W RADIO VHF PRIOR TO ENTERING SHANNON AIRSPACE AND TOLD WE WERE IN RADAR CONTACT AND THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. SELCALED AT 13 DEG W ABOUT TRANSGRESSION INTO SHANNON FIR. WE FOLLOWED OUR CLRED FLT PLAN ROUTE, TALKED TO EVERYBODY IN ADVANCE OF ENTERING THEIR AIRSPACE, ADVISED THEM OF THE PROBLEM IN EXITING AND THEN REENTERING A FIR AND WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH EVERYONE KNOWING OUR ROUTE OF FLT. IT SEEMS ODD NO ONE REALIZED THERE WAS A PROBLEM UNTIL AFTER THE TRANSGRESSION. THE PROBLEM AROSE IN THE FILING OF THE FLT PLAN AND SINCE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THIS UNTIL JUST PRIOR TO TKOF DUE TO MAINT DELAY, THE F/O DID NOT HAVE TIME TO PLOT OUR COURSE ON CHART. AFTER AIRBORNE, HE DISCOVERED THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT AND THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED TALKING TO EVERYBODY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT. WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED UNTIL AFTER WE HAD TRANSGRESSED THE FIR. THE ONLY SOLUTIONS I SEE ARE TO INCREASE COM BETWEEN CENTERS OR NOT ALLOW TKOF UNTIL AFTER THE COURSE HAS BEEN PLOTTED. AS WE READ THE REGS, DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING OUR MAINT DELAY WE COULD WAIT UNTIL AFTER AIRBORNE TO PLOT THE COURSE.

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.