Narrative:

In the descent just past tnp after I had turned direct for trm, ZLA asked us how we were cleared and I affirmed tnp direct trm direct psp. My first officer and I earlier compared our 10-1 pages and agreed it provided MSA and kept us on route segments all the way into the VOR approach which uses trm VOR. After in interchange with ZLA, we were cleared over to psp approach and cleared as we desired via trm VOR and flew the radial of the VOR approach to a smooth landing. A telephone call from psp approach was waiting (actually it was in response to ZLA). As soon as ZLA called us in the air, we rechked our clearance and they were correct -- our way, which was the more conservative tnp direct trm, psp via the VOR-B approach (using trm was safer but the flight plan skipped the trm VOR). The telephone call was cordial and I thanked approach and asked them to relay to ZLA my apology -- there was no traffic conflict. Going direct might save a min of flight time but our way being on a published route segment, always knowing your MSA and the bonus of being on the VOR used for the approach into this special airport is to me good sense and I would do the same again -- but next time I'll make sure to turn up the cockpit lights more, especially at the end of a 12 plus hour day, last leg of a 5 leg day/night and midnight on our personal clocks and scrutinize the flight plan. (I had done an extensive approach and landing briefing). I would have bet our way was the way the flight plan indicated, but it wasn't. I know from experience these computer flight plans are bottom line oriented and going direct saves a min but not prudent in this case since direct has you letting down over high mountain terrain. We are being replaced by computers in the flight plan process and as a result, the rtes become more nebulous. Another adverse step in this direction is the preprinted clrncs, another step out of the loop. I will ensure during our leg-by-leg cockpit briefing that the preprinted 'cleared as filed' is correlated with our flight plan. Here is a case where a tired crew under clear (resource management) briefed and flew the safest route/altitude to a landing but were still wrong since we didn't fly direct as our flight plan indicated.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF MLG ACR ACFT DEVIATED FROM THEIR FLT PLAN RTE WHILE DSNDING TO LAND DUE TO NOT CHKING WITH THE ACTUAL FLT PLAN CLRNC.

Narrative: IN THE DSCNT JUST PAST TNP AFTER I HAD TURNED DIRECT FOR TRM, ZLA ASKED US HOW WE WERE CLRED AND I AFFIRMED TNP DIRECT TRM DIRECT PSP. MY FO AND I EARLIER COMPARED OUR 10-1 PAGES AND AGREED IT PROVIDED MSA AND KEPT US ON RTE SEGMENTS ALL THE WAY INTO THE VOR APCH WHICH USES TRM VOR. AFTER IN INTERCHANGE WITH ZLA, WE WERE CLRED OVER TO PSP APCH AND CLRED AS WE DESIRED VIA TRM VOR AND FLEW THE RADIAL OF THE VOR APCH TO A SMOOTH LNDG. A TELEPHONE CALL FROM PSP APCH WAS WAITING (ACTUALLY IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO ZLA). AS SOON AS ZLA CALLED US IN THE AIR, WE RECHKED OUR CLRNC AND THEY WERE CORRECT -- OUR WAY, WHICH WAS THE MORE CONSERVATIVE TNP DIRECT TRM, PSP VIA THE VOR-B APCH (USING TRM WAS SAFER BUT THE FLT PLAN SKIPPED THE TRM VOR). THE TELEPHONE CALL WAS CORDIAL AND I THANKED APCH AND ASKED THEM TO RELAY TO ZLA MY APOLOGY -- THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT. GOING DIRECT MIGHT SAVE A MIN OF FLT TIME BUT OUR WAY BEING ON A PUBLISHED RTE SEGMENT, ALWAYS KNOWING YOUR MSA AND THE BONUS OF BEING ON THE VOR USED FOR THE APCH INTO THIS SPECIAL ARPT IS TO ME GOOD SENSE AND I WOULD DO THE SAME AGAIN -- BUT NEXT TIME I'LL MAKE SURE TO TURN UP THE COCKPIT LIGHTS MORE, ESPECIALLY AT THE END OF A 12 PLUS HR DAY, LAST LEG OF A 5 LEG DAY/NIGHT AND MIDNIGHT ON OUR PERSONAL CLOCKS AND SCRUTINIZE THE FLT PLAN. (I HAD DONE AN EXTENSIVE APCH AND LNDG BRIEFING). I WOULD HAVE BET OUR WAY WAS THE WAY THE FLT PLAN INDICATED, BUT IT WASN'T. I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE THESE COMPUTER FLT PLANS ARE BOTTOM LINE ORIENTED AND GOING DIRECT SAVES A MIN BUT NOT PRUDENT IN THIS CASE SINCE DIRECT HAS YOU LETTING DOWN OVER HIGH MOUNTAIN TERRAIN. WE ARE BEING REPLACED BY COMPUTERS IN THE FLT PLAN PROCESS AND AS A RESULT, THE RTES BECOME MORE NEBULOUS. ANOTHER ADVERSE STEP IN THIS DIRECTION IS THE PREPRINTED CLRNCS, ANOTHER STEP OUT OF THE LOOP. I WILL ENSURE DURING OUR LEG-BY-LEG COCKPIT BRIEFING THAT THE PREPRINTED 'CLRED AS FILED' IS CORRELATED WITH OUR FLT PLAN. HERE IS A CASE WHERE A TIRED CREW UNDER CLR (RESOURCE MGMNT) BRIEFED AND FLEW THE SAFEST RTE/ALT TO A LNDG BUT WERE STILL WRONG SINCE WE DIDN'T FLY DIRECT AS OUR FLT PLAN INDICATED.

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.