Narrative:

Our company generated flight plan and the flight filed by company dispatch for air carrier flight abc of 8/sun/89 from zurich to goose bay nfld, both showed north atlantic track D to oystr, then direct to goose bay. Clearance was received as filed, and en route when we gave our 50 degree west position report, we gave our ETA for oystr, with goose bay next. Gander center questioned our next point after oystr, and we again stated goose bay. Center then advised that we were cleared after oystr direct klamm, since the nat did not end until klamm, and that we would probably be cleared direct goose bay when we were in radar contact. We added klamm as an INS waypoint, and after oystr continued on the track going direct to klamm. Between oystr and klamm we received clearance from gander to go direct to goose bay. At no time did we leave the track, until we received clearance from gander to go direct to goose bay. However, an off-track excursion would probably have occurred if gander had not noted our plan to go direct from oystr to goose bay, and clarified our clearance. I believe that an error in the program for the computer generated the incorrect flight plan, and neither the dispatcher nor I caught the small difference, or were really aware that it could not be flown that way. Goose bay is not a normal destination for us, and as a result is not really programmed in as a destination. I have discussed this problem with air carrier flight operations, and they intend to see that changes are made with our computer program to eliminate the error. However, this type mistake can slip easily into the system again as routes change day to day. Greater vigilance and training emphasis is the only correcting action I can think of.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON ROUTINE DESTINATION CREATES SOME CONFUSION IN FLT PLANNING REGARDING ROUTE WITHIN GANDER OCEANIC CTL.

Narrative: OUR COMPANY GENERATED FLT PLAN AND THE FLT FILED BY COMPANY DISPATCH FOR ACR FLT ABC OF 8/SUN/89 FROM ZURICH TO GOOSE BAY NFLD, BOTH SHOWED NORTH ATLANTIC TRACK D TO OYSTR, THEN DIRECT TO GOOSE BAY. CLRNC WAS RECEIVED AS FILED, AND ENRTE WHEN WE GAVE OUR 50 DEG W POS RPT, WE GAVE OUR ETA FOR OYSTR, WITH GOOSE BAY NEXT. GANDER CENTER QUESTIONED OUR NEXT POINT AFTER OYSTR, AND WE AGAIN STATED GOOSE BAY. CENTER THEN ADVISED THAT WE WERE CLRED AFTER OYSTR DIRECT KLAMM, SINCE THE NAT DID NOT END UNTIL KLAMM, AND THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY BE CLRED DIRECT GOOSE BAY WHEN WE WERE IN RADAR CONTACT. WE ADDED KLAMM AS AN INS WAYPOINT, AND AFTER OYSTR CONTINUED ON THE TRACK GOING DIRECT TO KLAMM. BTWN OYSTR AND KLAMM WE RECEIVED CLRNC FROM GANDER TO GO DIRECT TO GOOSE BAY. AT NO TIME DID WE LEAVE THE TRACK, UNTIL WE RECEIVED CLRNC FROM GANDER TO GO DIRECT TO GOOSE BAY. HOWEVER, AN OFF-TRACK EXCURSION WOULD PROBABLY HAVE OCCURRED IF GANDER HAD NOT NOTED OUR PLAN TO GO DIRECT FROM OYSTR TO GOOSE BAY, AND CLARIFIED OUR CLRNC. I BELIEVE THAT AN ERROR IN THE PROGRAM FOR THE COMPUTER GENERATED THE INCORRECT FLT PLAN, AND NEITHER THE DISPATCHER NOR I CAUGHT THE SMALL DIFFERENCE, OR WERE REALLY AWARE THAT IT COULD NOT BE FLOWN THAT WAY. GOOSE BAY IS NOT A NORMAL DEST FOR US, AND AS A RESULT IS NOT REALLY PROGRAMMED IN AS A DEST. I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PROB WITH ACR FLT OPS, AND THEY INTEND TO SEE THAT CHANGES ARE MADE WITH OUR COMPUTER PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE THE ERROR. HOWEVER, THIS TYPE MISTAKE CAN SLIP EASILY INTO THE SYS AGAIN AS ROUTES CHANGE DAY TO DAY. GREATER VIGILANCE AND TRNING EMPHASIS IS THE ONLY CORRECTING ACTION I CAN THINK OF.

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.