Narrative:

Original clearance to clt was zqa G437 elbow lends AR16 seelo spiky AR12 pitrw STOCR1 at FL340. After takeoff; we joined G437 and when handed off to miami center; we were given an unrestricted climb to FL350. There was a discussion on the flight deck to ensure that aircraft performance made FL350 an acceptable altitude; and that it was wafdof (wrong altitude for direction of flight) for most of our flight. Approximately 10 nm north east of ingra miami center asked if we could accept direct seelo. Using the FMS; I drew a 162nm arc around tts and another around chs; then entered the proposed route as a temporary flight plan. Using the plan view; I examined the route and found that the entry and exit points for the proposed route were within the 162nm overwater restriction. I conferred with the first officer; who agreed; the we accepted the clearance. The maximum range for the pfd is 320nm. The proposed segment length exceeded 400nm; so we were not able to view the entire route at any setting. Stepping through the flight plan; the endpoints looked good; but until the flight progressed; there was no way to check the center using the FMS. For this situation; our paper charts and plotter were useless due to scale. Likewise; our ipads with jeppesen flightdeck pro were crippled by the same scaling issues as the FMS. The wsi weather app also has some scaling quirks; which made it useless. Based upon a post flight reconstruction; I estimate that a 50nm segment [of the flight] was outside the 162nm limit. Inflight; we had noticed a potential problem. We used ever resource in the cockpit; including terrain mapping; wsi weather brief; and weather radar to determine compliance; but at each step confronted the same scaling issues. We heard other pilots asking mia center about exceeding their limits; but the controller was unable to provide them with any answers; so we did not ask.prior to M203 we requested direct pitrw which would resolve the issue; but center was not able to grant the request until crossing AR5. The result is that we flew approximately 40nm outside the 162nm limit with a maximum distance from shore of 175nm.this issue could be prevented by having 'no fly zones' as a jepp overlay; and by continuous; vs discrete scaling on at least one device. This restriction must be manually added to our paper charts with each revision. Another mitigating factor is that while trying to determine compliance; many waypoints are not in the FMS database and had to be manually entered as lat long. Hunter aaf; nrb; sgj; fhb and ssi are not included [on the database].

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Captain reported accepting an overwater clearance that exceeded the 162NM limit due to inability to verify the route on charts or the FMS.

Narrative: Original clearance to CLT was ZQA G437 ELBOW LENDS AR16 SEELO SPIKY AR12 PITRW STOCR1 at FL340. After takeoff; we joined G437 and when handed off to Miami center; we were given an unrestricted climb to FL350. There was a discussion on the flight deck to ensure that aircraft performance made FL350 an acceptable altitude; and that it was WAFDOF (Wrong Altitude for Direction of Flight) for most of our flight. Approximately 10 nm North East of INGRA Miami center asked if we could accept direct SEELO. Using the FMS; I drew a 162nm arc around TTS and another around CHS; then entered the proposed route as a temporary flight plan. Using the Plan view; I examined the route and found that the entry and exit points for the proposed route were within the 162nm overwater restriction. I conferred with the First Officer; who agreed; the we accepted the clearance. The maximum range for the PFD is 320nm. The proposed segment length exceeded 400nm; so we were not able to view the entire route at any setting. Stepping through the flight plan; the endpoints looked good; but until the flight progressed; there was no way to check the center using the FMS. For this situation; our paper charts and plotter were useless due to scale. Likewise; our IPads with Jeppesen FlightDeck Pro were crippled by the same scaling issues as the FMS. The WSI weather app also has some scaling quirks; which made it useless. Based upon a post flight reconstruction; I estimate that a 50nm segment [of the flight] was outside the 162nm limit. Inflight; we had noticed a potential problem. We used ever resource in the cockpit; including Terrain mapping; WSI weather brief; and weather radar to determine compliance; but at each step confronted the same scaling issues. We heard other pilots asking MIA center about exceeding their limits; but the controller was unable to provide them with any answers; so we did not ask.Prior to M203 we requested direct PITRW which would resolve the issue; but center was not able to grant the request until crossing AR5. The result is that we flew approximately 40nm outside the 162nm limit with a maximum distance from shore of 175nm.This issue could be prevented by having 'No FLY ZONES' as a Jepp overlay; and by continuous; vs discrete scaling on at least ONE device. This restriction must be manually added to our paper charts with each revision. Another mitigating factor is that while trying to determine compliance; many waypoints are not in the FMS database and had to be manually entered as Lat Long. Hunter AAF; NRB; SGJ; FHB and SSI are not included [on the database].

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.