37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 202312 |
Time | |
Date | 199202 |
Day | Sat |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : jms |
State Reference | ND |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 10000 msl bound upper : 10000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | IMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
Flight Phase | cruise other |
Route In Use | enroute airway : v170 |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : instrument |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 2775 flight time type : 200 |
ASRS Report | 202312 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
Company is a scheduled air carrier operating light transport's while operating flight on feb/xy/92 from jms to gfk, ZMP stated it's a good thing no other aircraft are flying in nd, because I'm showing you guys off course, do you need a heading for gfk.' I stated that we are on course and are proceeding as filed, which is jms-V170.jms 343021.V55 gfk, prepared jan/xx/92 and effective feb/xx/92 as per company memorandum and operations manual. The old flight plan in which ZMP had was filed jms direct gfk. I relayed this message to center and he said 'ok, must be in the computer somewhere, and there will be no problem.' company operates 26 flts between gfk and jms-jms and gfk per week, and there has been no confusion in the ZMP computers along this route until this flight. I have checked with company operations, and they have also verified it was changed in the computers. I consider the ZMP flight plan files at fault in this situation and I consider it unsafe. I find it upsetting to receive a clearance through FSS and have it differ from the one that center has in his computer. I think old flight plans need to be deleted from computers and not left to surface as in this situation. This could cause a grave danger if other aircraft are operating along this route, descending or climbing, while the center has a heavy load. My airline uses canned flight plans which are updated often and in which flcs depend on. To further the safety of my crew and passenger I will require and request full route clrncs to aid in lack of computer communications in the system. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states this is not an ongoing problem. Flew new routing before and after the incident and has had no problems. Commuters fly the same rtes so often, reporter feels controller may have just been so familiar with former route he did not connect with the new routing.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CTLR EXPECTS COMMUTER TO FLY DIFFERENT RTE THAN CURRENT CTR STORED RTE.
Narrative: COMPANY IS A SCHEDULED ACR OPERATING LTT'S WHILE OPERATING FLT ON FEB/XY/92 FROM JMS TO GFK, ZMP STATED IT'S A GOOD THING NO OTHER ACFT ARE FLYING IN ND, BECAUSE I'M SHOWING YOU GUYS OFF COURSE, DO YOU NEED A HDG FOR GFK.' I STATED THAT WE ARE ON COURSE AND ARE PROCEEDING AS FILED, WHICH IS JMS-V170.JMS 343021.V55 GFK, PREPARED JAN/XX/92 AND EFFECTIVE FEB/XX/92 AS PER COMPANY MEMORANDUM AND OPS MANUAL. THE OLD FLT PLAN IN WHICH ZMP HAD WAS FILED JMS DIRECT GFK. I RELAYED THIS MESSAGE TO CTR AND HE SAID 'OK, MUST BE IN THE COMPUTER SOMEWHERE, AND THERE WILL BE NO PROBLEM.' COMPANY OPERATES 26 FLTS BTWN GFK AND JMS-JMS AND GFK PER WK, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFUSION IN THE ZMP COMPUTERS ALONG THIS RTE UNTIL THIS FLT. I HAVE CHKED WITH COMPANY OPS, AND THEY HAVE ALSO VERIFIED IT WAS CHANGED IN THE COMPUTERS. I CONSIDER THE ZMP FLT PLAN FILES AT FAULT IN THIS SITUATION AND I CONSIDER IT UNSAFE. I FIND IT UPSETTING TO RECEIVE A CLRNC THROUGH FSS AND HAVE IT DIFFER FROM THE ONE THAT CTR HAS IN HIS COMPUTER. I THINK OLD FLT PLANS NEED TO BE DELETED FROM COMPUTERS AND NOT LEFT TO SURFACE AS IN THIS SITUATION. THIS COULD CAUSE A GRAVE DANGER IF OTHER ACFT ARE OPERATING ALONG THIS RTE, DSNDING OR CLBING, WHILE THE CTR HAS A HVY LOAD. MY AIRLINE USES CANNED FLT PLANS WHICH ARE UPDATED OFTEN AND IN WHICH FLCS DEPEND ON. TO FURTHER THE SAFETY OF MY CREW AND PAX I WILL REQUIRE AND REQUEST FULL RTE CLRNCS TO AID IN LACK OF COMPUTER COMS IN THE SYS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THIS IS NOT AN ONGOING PROBLEM. FLEW NEW RTING BEFORE AND AFTER THE INCIDENT AND HAS HAD NO PROBLEMS. COMMUTERS FLY THE SAME RTES SO OFTEN, RPTR FEELS CTLR MAY HAVE JUST BEEN SO FAMILIAR WITH FORMER RTE HE DID NOT CONNECT WITH THE NEW RTING.
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.