Narrative:

After pre-flight we discussed the maintenance issues; one of which was MEL 22-10-02 which is in reference to the 'heading bug' being inoperative with the autopilot. We discussed the MEL which stated that the aircraft was airworthy and capable of operating in rvsm and RNAV scenarios. During the flight we received clearance via the sockk two RNAV arrival. Before reaching gutzz intersection we received direct kiilo; and approximately 20 NM from kiilo we received a 'descend via' clearance for the sockk two arrival. Due to the speed restriction given to us of 270 and the late descend via clearance we determined that we 'might be a little high' at kiilo. I informed ATC (fort worth center) and we received clearance to be high at kiilo as long as we maintained 270 KTS. We maintained 270 and made the altitudes listed at kiilo. It is around this time that the fort worth center controller gave us a left turn for spacing. The captain then advised the controller of our current MEL and that we would have to disconnect the autopilot to make the turn; and therefore be unable to continue the RNAV arrival. The fort worth controller then cleared us to stay on the arrival and maintain 230 KTS. We were then handed off the regional approach control. We checked in with regional approach control and were issued a speed reduction to 210 KTS; a descent to 6;000 MSL and a left turn. The captain then reiterated our MEL and that if we took the turn we would have to disconnect the autopilot and would be unable to continue the RNAV arrival. The controller acknowledged the issue; and issued the turn again; at which point we immediately disconnected the autopilot and made the turn to the assigned heading. Shortly after which the regional approach controller advised us of a 'possible pilot deviation' and we copied a phone number down. We complied with each altitude and speed restriction given to us during the flight and landed the aircraft without further incident.I believe this was a miscommunication/ misunderstanding with air traffic control and ourselves. Better communication of current aircraft operational limitations with air traffic control; and possibly more understanding of company operational limitations by air traffic control could easily prevent this situation from reoccurring.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ900 Flight Crew reported being dispatched with MEL 22-10-02 for the heading bug not controlling the autopilot. This became an issue during the arrival when ATC issued a heading and the crew informed them the autopilot must be turned off to comply and they could no longer fly the RNAV arrival. ATC issued the heading again then asked the crew to copy a phone number for a possible pilot deviation.

Narrative: After pre-flight we discussed the maintenance issues; one of which was MEL 22-10-02 which is in reference to the 'heading bug' being inoperative with the autopilot. We discussed the MEL which stated that the aircraft was airworthy and capable of operating in RVSM and RNAV scenarios. During the flight we received clearance via the SOCKK TWO RNAV arrival. Before reaching GUTZZ intersection we received direct KIILO; and approximately 20 NM from KIILO we received a 'descend via' clearance for the SOCKK TWO arrival. Due to the speed restriction given to us of 270 and the late descend via clearance we determined that we 'might be a little high' at KIILO. I informed ATC (Fort Worth center) and we received clearance to be high at KIILO as long as we maintained 270 KTS. We maintained 270 and made the altitudes listed at KIILO. It is around this time that the Fort Worth center controller gave us a left turn for spacing. The captain then advised the controller of our current MEL and that we would have to disconnect the autopilot to make the turn; and therefore be unable to continue the RNAV arrival. The Fort Worth Controller then cleared us to stay on the arrival and maintain 230 KTS. We were then handed off the Regional Approach control. We checked in with Regional Approach control and were issued a speed reduction to 210 KTS; a descent to 6;000 MSL and a left turn. The captain then reiterated our MEL and that if we took the turn we would have to disconnect the autopilot and would be unable to continue the RNAV arrival. The controller acknowledged the issue; and issued the turn again; at which point we immediately disconnected the autopilot and made the turn to the assigned heading. Shortly after which the Regional Approach controller advised us of a 'Possible Pilot Deviation' and we copied a phone number down. We complied with each altitude and speed restriction given to us during the flight and landed the aircraft without further incident.I believe this was a miscommunication/ misunderstanding with Air Traffic Control and ourselves. Better communication of current aircraft operational limitations with Air Traffic Control; and possibly more understanding of company operational limitations by Air Traffic Control could easily prevent this situation from reoccurring.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.