Narrative:

I departed the augusta, me, airport with a friend (who acted as PNF) in VMC conditions on an IFR flight plan to bedford. This was the third and final leg of a day of flying. The route that I filed and for which we were 'cleared as filed' was as follows: kaug nhz ene psm lwm bed. While preparing for the flight, I originally obtained a complete duat briefing for a different route, then decided to change the route to avoid heavy precipitation and thunderstorms on the original route. I then obtained duat WX for augusta, requesting the sa, ft and NOTAM reports. The only NOTAM for augusta was that runway 8/26 was closed. After takeoff, we flew runway heading as directed in our clearance and contacted brunswick departure. The controller asked us to confirm that we were on course. The PNF, who was working the radios, replied that we were flying runway heading. In the meantime, I was flying the needle on runway heading and it was staying centered. A bit later, the PNF noticed that we were not able to identify the nhz VOR and contacted brunswick departure. The controller acknowledged. Then another controller came on and said that the VOR had been OTS for 9 months and that we should proceed direct to ene. At that point, we realized that we had strayed a considerable distance from the course for which we were cleared. Since we were in VMC conditions, there was no danger of collision with terrain or traffic. If we had been in IMC, there might have been considerable danger. Our question is: how can an IFR clearance work its way through the ATC system when it includes a NAVAID that has been OTS for 9 months? After the flight, I checked the fdc NOTAMS for the route in duat and there was no mention of nhz being out, nor did FSS have any record of it being out (which we verified via telephone call the day of the incident). We do not have a copy of the NOTAM publication, but will check one at the FSDO later this week to see if it contains a NOTAM for nhz being OTS. Supplemental information from acn 242543: my issue is this: how can we be issued a clearance to a VOR that has been OTS for over 9 months? After our arrival to bed, I called the bdr FSS and asked them if such a NOTAM exists for that route of flight. The briefer informed me that no such NOTAM was on file for the brunswick VOR and had no knowledge of it being down. I also read my commercial NOTAMS and it states (as evidenced in the accompanying photocopy) that the brunswick VOR 'may be shut down.' the same goes for the mht VOR and I know for a fact that it has been in continuous operational status for quite some time. So what am I to believe? Clearly, there is a problem here that needs to be corrected.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR FLT PLAN FILED AND ACCEPTED USING NAVAID OTS FOR 9 MONTHS.

Narrative: I DEPARTED THE AUGUSTA, ME, ARPT WITH A FRIEND (WHO ACTED AS PNF) IN VMC CONDITIONS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO BEDFORD. THIS WAS THE THIRD AND FINAL LEG OF A DAY OF FLYING. THE RTE THAT I FILED AND FOR WHICH WE WERE 'CLRED AS FILED' WAS AS FOLLOWS: KAUG NHZ ENE PSM LWM BED. WHILE PREPARING FOR THE FLT, I ORIGINALLY OBTAINED A COMPLETE DUAT BRIEFING FOR A DIFFERENT RTE, THEN DECIDED TO CHANGE THE RTE TO AVOID HVY PRECIPITATION AND TSTMS ON THE ORIGINAL RTE. I THEN OBTAINED DUAT WX FOR AUGUSTA, REQUESTING THE SA, FT AND NOTAM RPTS. THE ONLY NOTAM FOR AUGUSTA WAS THAT RWY 8/26 WAS CLOSED. AFTER TKOF, WE FLEW RWY HDG AS DIRECTED IN OUR CLRNC AND CONTACTED BRUNSWICK DEP. THE CTLR ASKED US TO CONFIRM THAT WE WERE ON COURSE. THE PNF, WHO WAS WORKING THE RADIOS, REPLIED THAT WE WERE FLYING RWY HDG. IN THE MEANTIME, I WAS FLYING THE NEEDLE ON RWY HDG AND IT WAS STAYING CTRED. A BIT LATER, THE PNF NOTICED THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO IDENT THE NHZ VOR AND CONTACTED BRUNSWICK DEP. THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED. THEN ANOTHER CTLR CAME ON AND SAID THAT THE VOR HAD BEEN OTS FOR 9 MONTHS AND THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED DIRECT TO ENE. AT THAT POINT, WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD STRAYED A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM THE COURSE FOR WHICH WE WERE CLRED. SINCE WE WERE IN VMC CONDITIONS, THERE WAS NO DANGER OF COLLISION WITH TERRAIN OR TFC. IF WE HAD BEEN IN IMC, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLE DANGER. OUR QUESTION IS: HOW CAN AN IFR CLRNC WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THE ATC SYS WHEN IT INCLUDES A NAVAID THAT HAS BEEN OTS FOR 9 MONTHS? AFTER THE FLT, I CHKED THE FDC NOTAMS FOR THE RTE IN DUAT AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF NHZ BEING OUT, NOR DID FSS HAVE ANY RECORD OF IT BEING OUT (WHICH WE VERIFIED VIA TELEPHONE CALL THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT). WE DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE NOTAM PUB, BUT WILL CHK ONE AT THE FSDO LATER THIS WK TO SEE IF IT CONTAINS A NOTAM FOR NHZ BEING OTS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 242543: MY ISSUE IS THIS: HOW CAN WE BE ISSUED A CLRNC TO A VOR THAT HAS BEEN OTS FOR OVER 9 MONTHS? AFTER OUR ARR TO BED, I CALLED THE BDR FSS AND ASKED THEM IF SUCH A NOTAM EXISTS FOR THAT RTE OF FLT. THE BRIEFER INFORMED ME THAT NO SUCH NOTAM WAS ON FILE FOR THE BRUNSWICK VOR AND HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT BEING DOWN. I ALSO READ MY COMMERCIAL NOTAMS AND IT STATES (AS EVIDENCED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PHOTOCOPY) THAT THE BRUNSWICK VOR 'MAY BE SHUT DOWN.' THE SAME GOES FOR THE MHT VOR AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS OPERATIONAL STATUS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. SO WHAT AM I TO BELIEVE? CLEARLY, THERE IS A PROB HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

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.