Narrative:

During cruise on flight from england to us east coast, INS was programmed for a revised 'north american' routing over southeast canada by captain, who thought he had heard from the F/a nar #160 (having been off radio at time of clearance receipt, by the first officer). The actual clearance was nar #164, but somehow I (captain) thought the first officer said we were cleared via nar #160 and proceeded to program INS according to this nar #160 revision. First officer trusted my review of data and INS insertion until moncton center asked what point we were flying to. Nar #160 terminated at allex. Nar #164 terminated at topps, about 60 NM distant over a 550 mi leg. Thus, hardly a major difficulty as error was discovered at over 400 mi away. However, the lack of double-check had not bitten me, as I did not require the first officer to double-check my work. I am normally very diligent with INS work, but my misunderstanding of the first officer's statement to me re: the correct nar or because it could have been misstated to me I feel caused this problem. The moncton center was very understanding and indicated there was, 'no problem.' one can never be vigilance enough!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MIL ACFT ON NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTE PROGRAMMED WRONG ROUTE INTO INS. MONCTON QUERIED AND CORRECTED THE FLT CREW.

Narrative: DURING CRUISE ON FLT FROM ENGLAND TO U.S. E COAST, INS WAS PROGRAMMED FOR A REVISED 'NORTH AMERICAN' RTING OVER SE CANADA BY CAPT, WHO THOUGHT HE HAD HEARD FROM THE F/A NAR #160 (HAVING BEEN OFF RADIO AT TIME OF CLRNC RECEIPT, BY THE F/O). THE ACTUAL CLRNC WAS NAR #164, BUT SOMEHOW I (CAPT) THOUGHT THE F/O SAID WE WERE CLRED VIA NAR #160 AND PROCEEDED TO PROGRAM INS ACCORDING TO THIS NAR #160 REVISION. F/O TRUSTED MY REVIEW OF DATA AND INS INSERTION UNTIL MONCTON CENTER ASKED WHAT POINT WE WERE FLYING TO. NAR #160 TERMINATED AT ALLEX. NAR #164 TERMINATED AT TOPPS, ABOUT 60 NM DISTANT OVER A 550 MI LEG. THUS, HARDLY A MAJOR DIFFICULTY AS ERROR WAS DISCOVERED AT OVER 400 MI AWAY. HOWEVER, THE LACK OF DOUBLE-CHK HAD NOT BITTEN ME, AS I DID NOT REQUIRE THE F/O TO DOUBLE-CHK MY WORK. I AM NORMALLY VERY DILIGENT WITH INS WORK, BUT MY MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE F/O'S STATEMENT TO ME RE: THE CORRECT NAR OR BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN MISSTATED TO ME I FEEL CAUSED THIS PROB. THE MONCTON CENTER WAS VERY UNDERSTANDING AND INDICATED THERE WAS, 'NO PROB.' ONE CAN NEVER BE VIGILANCE ENOUGH!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.