Narrative:

How ironic! I was going to write a NASA report on this STAR (nickl 2 to msp) anyway because I have a serious concern about how the chart is written. Then I flew it recently and fell into 'the trap.' also, several months ago I notified my flight operations department about my concern and was surprised to see the same chart when I got it out to fly it last week. I thought they may have gotten it (the STAR) revised/improved. Here's what happened to me. After passing badger VOR, we had intercepted the gopher 103 degree radial inbound to gep. Between donni and auger intxns center vectored us to the nnw (approximately 310 degree heading). After staying on that heading for awhile, I assumed we would be cleared to intercept the arrival on the green bay transition. Instead we were given a wsw heading to reintercept the gep 103 degree radial and resume the STAR. I turned to the correct heading, but dialed in msp (115.3) instead of gep (117.3). We were still about 2 degree from intercepting the msp 103 degree right when center advised us that we were south of course and continuing further south. He said we were 10 NM off the gep 103 degree radial, but when we both dialed up 117.3 (gep), we were about 1-2 degrees south of course at approximately 106 DME, indicating, at most, approximately 3 NM off course. No conflict arose and center later told us that his traffic flow had not been messed up. We aggressively re-intercepted the incident. I have 2 major concerns with this STAR. 1) except for in the verbal description of the STAR, the 103 degree radial is not defined or labeled anywhere on the pictorial portion of the STAR noting which VOR to use. Solution: bring gep and 117.3 above or on the present R103 degree notation. Also, extend a line past anger and label it similarly. 2) also, the 2 frequencys 117.3 and 115.3 can, obviously, too easily be interchanged. Solution: change gep frequency. Copy of nickl 2 arrival is attached.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CONFUSES WHICH RADIAL OF WHICH VOR HE IS TO INTERCEPT, TUNES WRONG VOR AND OVERSHOT THE PROPER RADIAL.

Narrative: HOW IRONIC! I WAS GOING TO WRITE A NASA RPT ON THIS STAR (NICKL 2 TO MSP) ANYWAY BECAUSE I HAVE A SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT HOW THE CHART IS WRITTEN. THEN I FLEW IT RECENTLY AND FELL INTO 'THE TRAP.' ALSO, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO I NOTIFIED MY FLT OPS DEPT ABOUT MY CONCERN AND WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THE SAME CHART WHEN I GOT IT OUT TO FLY IT LAST WK. I THOUGHT THEY MAY HAVE GOTTEN IT (THE STAR) REVISED/IMPROVED. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED TO ME. AFTER PASSING BADGER VOR, WE HAD INTERCEPTED THE GOPHER 103 DEG RADIAL INBOUND TO GEP. BTWN DONNI AND AUGER INTXNS CTR VECTORED US TO THE NNW (APPROX 310 DEG HDG). AFTER STAYING ON THAT HDG FOR AWHILE, I ASSUMED WE WOULD BE CLRED TO INTERCEPT THE ARR ON THE GREEN BAY TRANSITION. INSTEAD WE WERE GIVEN A WSW HDG TO REINTERCEPT THE GEP 103 DEG RADIAL AND RESUME THE STAR. I TURNED TO THE CORRECT HDG, BUT DIALED IN MSP (115.3) INSTEAD OF GEP (117.3). WE WERE STILL ABOUT 2 DEG FROM INTERCEPTING THE MSP 103 DEG R WHEN CTR ADVISED US THAT WE WERE S OF COURSE AND CONTINUING FURTHER S. HE SAID WE WERE 10 NM OFF THE GEP 103 DEG RADIAL, BUT WHEN WE BOTH DIALED UP 117.3 (GEP), WE WERE ABOUT 1-2 DEGS S OF COURSE AT APPROX 106 DME, INDICATING, AT MOST, APPROX 3 NM OFF COURSE. NO CONFLICT AROSE AND CTR LATER TOLD US THAT HIS TFC FLOW HAD NOT BEEN MESSED UP. WE AGGRESSIVELY RE-INTERCEPTED THE INCIDENT. I HAVE 2 MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS STAR. 1) EXCEPT FOR IN THE VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STAR, THE 103 DEG RADIAL IS NOT DEFINED OR LABELED ANYWHERE ON THE PICTORIAL PORTION OF THE STAR NOTING WHICH VOR TO USE. SOLUTION: BRING GEP AND 117.3 ABOVE OR ON THE PRESENT R103 DEG NOTATION. ALSO, EXTEND A LINE PAST ANGER AND LABEL IT SIMILARLY. 2) ALSO, THE 2 FREQS 117.3 AND 115.3 CAN, OBVIOUSLY, TOO EASILY BE INTERCHANGED. SOLUTION: CHANGE GEP FREQ. COPY OF NICKL 2 ARR IS ATTACHED.

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.