Narrative:

On an air carrier flight from fra to dtw, was uneventful until we approached yow on north american route (nar) 226. At that time the captain requested direct routing to peck to shorten our flight time and conserve fuel. Montreal center did not understand how we planned to proceed because we were cleared to fly nar 226, which did not go to peck. In discussions with the next 3 controllers, the captain seemed determined to address only the fact that we were filed for nar 244 by our dispatcher, not nar 226 as cleared. The controllers were more concerned whether we intended to follow our cleared routing or not. They stated they had no knowledge of what we filed for. It should be noted that the non-common portions of nar 226 and nar 224 to dtw are identical from our cleared routing, nar 226, even though the captain did request clearance to a point not along our route. Some background: this is not an isolated event. Company dispatch has negotiated with toronto center to allow company aircraft to fly nar 244 with direct routing to suann to peck to dtw, when returning from europe in order to save fuel. Apparently moncton center and montreal center were not privy to these discussions. They continue to clear company flts by a routing other than that filed. Usually around yow, toronto center becomes the controling agency. The filed route is then requested by the flight crew and it is granted. Unfortunately, you gain this insight only by experiencing it. I have seen capts frustrated by this setup numerous times. Human factors: throughout this trip I attempted to contribute bits of information I had learned over the past 2 yrs flying to europe. The captain was on his second or third trip to fra, yet was unwilling to use the experience of his crew to his advantage. This manifested itself several times in our 6 day trip. As to the canadian airspace problem, I had mentioned to the captain and first officer that montreal was not amenable to granting our company's unique routing request, but as we approached yow and were switched to toronto, we would be reclred to nar 244 as filed. This information was apparently disregarded as well. The worst part of the whole situation for me was that as a result of being ignored and rejected in my attempted to operate as a crew, I became complacent and uninvolved. I realized the second that the captain requested 'direct peck' that he was asking for a point not on our cleared route and was likely to cause montreal center confusion. After being ignored for 3 days, I saw no advantage to butting in again. Montreal and moncton center should be included in discussions with company dispatch and toronto center concerning desired routing. This would help avoid confusion for everyone involved.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SO NOTES INTERFAC COORD DIFFICULTIES AND FILED VS CLEARED ROUTINGS FOR NAR 226-224.

Narrative: ON AN ACR FLT FROM FRA TO DTW, WAS UNEVENTFUL UNTIL WE APCHED YOW ON NORTH AMERICAN ROUTE (NAR) 226. AT THAT TIME THE CAPT REQUESTED DIRECT RTING TO PECK TO SHORTEN OUR FLT TIME AND CONSERVE FUEL. MONTREAL CENTER DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW WE PLANNED TO PROCEED BECAUSE WE WERE CLRED TO FLY NAR 226, WHICH DID NOT GO TO PECK. IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEXT 3 CTLRS, THE CAPT SEEMED DETERMINED TO ADDRESS ONLY THE FACT THAT WE WERE FILED FOR NAR 244 BY OUR DISPATCHER, NOT NAR 226 AS CLRED. THE CTLRS WERE MORE CONCERNED WHETHER WE INTENDED TO FOLLOW OUR CLRED RTING OR NOT. THEY STATED THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WE FILED FOR. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE NON-COMMON PORTIONS OF NAR 226 AND NAR 224 TO DTW ARE IDENTICAL FROM OUR CLRED RTING, NAR 226, EVEN THOUGH THE CAPT DID REQUEST CLRNC TO A POINT NOT ALONG OUR RTE. SOME BACKGROUND: THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED EVENT. COMPANY DISPATCH HAS NEGOTIATED WITH TORONTO CENTER TO ALLOW COMPANY ACFT TO FLY NAR 244 WITH DIRECT RTING TO SUANN TO PECK TO DTW, WHEN RETURNING FROM EUROPE IN ORDER TO SAVE FUEL. APPARENTLY MONCTON CENTER AND MONTREAL CENTER WERE NOT PRIVY TO THESE DISCUSSIONS. THEY CONTINUE TO CLR COMPANY FLTS BY A RTING OTHER THAN THAT FILED. USUALLY AROUND YOW, TORONTO CENTER BECOMES THE CTLING AGENCY. THE FILED RTE IS THEN REQUESTED BY THE FLT CREW AND IT IS GRANTED. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU GAIN THIS INSIGHT ONLY BY EXPERIENCING IT. I HAVE SEEN CAPTS FRUSTRATED BY THIS SETUP NUMEROUS TIMES. HUMAN FACTORS: THROUGHOUT THIS TRIP I ATTEMPTED TO CONTRIBUTE BITS OF INFO I HAD LEARNED OVER THE PAST 2 YRS FLYING TO EUROPE. THE CAPT WAS ON HIS SECOND OR THIRD TRIP TO FRA, YET WAS UNWILLING TO USE THE EXPERIENCE OF HIS CREW TO HIS ADVANTAGE. THIS MANIFESTED ITSELF SEVERAL TIMES IN OUR 6 DAY TRIP. AS TO THE CANADIAN AIRSPACE PROB, I HAD MENTIONED TO THE CAPT AND F/O THAT MONTREAL WAS NOT AMENABLE TO GRANTING OUR COMPANY'S UNIQUE RTING REQUEST, BUT AS WE APCHED YOW AND WERE SWITCHED TO TORONTO, WE WOULD BE RECLRED TO NAR 244 AS FILED. THIS INFO WAS APPARENTLY DISREGARDED AS WELL. THE WORST PART OF THE WHOLE SITUATION FOR ME WAS THAT AS A RESULT OF BEING IGNORED AND REJECTED IN MY ATTEMPTED TO OPERATE AS A CREW, I BECAME COMPLACENT AND UNINVOLVED. I REALIZED THE SECOND THAT THE CAPT REQUESTED 'DIRECT PECK' THAT HE WAS ASKING FOR A POINT NOT ON OUR CLRED RTE AND WAS LIKELY TO CAUSE MONTREAL CENTER CONFUSION. AFTER BEING IGNORED FOR 3 DAYS, I SAW NO ADVANTAGE TO BUTTING IN AGAIN. MONTREAL AND MONCTON CENTER SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPANY DISPATCH AND TORONTO CENTER CONCERNING DESIRED RTING. THIS WOULD HELP AVOID CONFUSION FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.

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.