Narrative:

Flight bb bos-sju dispatched IFR without HF communication radios via lucos, sey, hto, J174. Diw, AR7 panal, AR3 nucar direct gtk, A555 idaho, route 6 direct. On climb handed off to ZBW cleared direct atk and told we had a rerte from new york, copied and reprogrammed the new route -- continuing climb to cruise altitude of FL350. Looked at route -- seemed a way out for VHF communication, so asked center if this was a HF route if so we did not have HF aboard. Bos called ny and replied that they would approve us over the route by relaying our position through other aircraft using 121.5. They asked us if we were overwater equipped and we replied in the affirmative. We asked reason for rerte and were told our requested route was saturated. A little later we were offered a return to our original routing. The new routing, ack, slatn, A632 bda, G432 dorado, ddp, sju, showed about :15 less flying time and a commensurate fuel saving. We sent ACARS message to msp dispatch and got a phone patch to confirm new route and get new fuel figures. Talked about VHF relays -- lost radio and ACARS contact as we talked. However a kk relayed the fuel figures to us. Approaching bda returned to ACARS coverage -- gave position report to company. We were told to divert to bda and land, and that if we continued on cleared routing we would be in violation of far 121-161 (ETOPS regulations). If we turned west from bda and returned to a non ETOPS routing we would add approximately an hour and obviously compromise our fuel reserves. We landed bda talked to dispatch on the phone, refueled received new paperwork including a new dispatch release with a west routing via R14 manna, direct 30N 7320W, direct elkas, G431 ddp direct. We need better training on ETOPS -- what are ETOPS rtes so we can avoid them. We should not send aircraft on long range flts without HF communication so that communication can be maintained with dispatch resulting in better communication and decisions. I think we were led astray by a clearance that was in violation of a LOA (which I found out about after the fact) that says ATC will not route air carrier narrow body aircraft over the route. Dispatch seemed to agree with the rerte by giving us new fuel burn figures. Lack of continuous communication complicated matters. From now on I'll be a lot more critical of re- rtes regardless of assurances from outside parties. Supplemental information from acn 297811: ZNY supervisor called ZBW restricting all aircraft entering ZNY's airspace to caribbean destinations to enter via slatn A632 bda, etc. Aircraft was rerted without proper overwater equipment. I was instructed not to violate aircraft for not having HF radios. Aircraft had to land bda for fuel. Aircraft was not rated for ETOPS (extended twin operations over water). Had this flight experienced any problems, pilot had no way of direct communications, and aircraft was not certified for route assigned. Supplemental information from acn 297517: bos ARTCC rerted air carrier from A320 non-HF/non-ETOPS, on a route prescribed by the 'waters' LOA with nyc. The LOA is supposed to exempt air carrier because our aircraft are unable to comply with communication and overwater requirements. The crew accepted the rerte after being offered backup VHF communications procedures, not knowing about the ETOPS area south of bda. I told ATC to put them back on the filed route. When ATC attempted to do this, the crew declined and continued on the illegal route. Communication was lost, both VHF and ACARS, shortly thereafter. Backup procedures of using 121.5 MHZ for position relays were used. The aircraft re-entered ACARS range north of bda, and I released the flight to bda, citing far 121.161 as the reason. After refueling and filing a route which complied with the far, the flight departed bda via R14. ATC offered to use the same VHF procedures described earlier for position reports. The flight completed the bda-sju leg exactly as planned and the communications worked perfectly. Even though this route is in the HF area of the atlantic, I could find no reason, regulation, or company procedure which would not allow operation using stated backup VHF procedures. Later, I was informed that air carrier operation specifications prohibit non-HF operation on the selected route, although that part of our operations-specifications is not available for dispatch review. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated this was a large learning experience for all involved. He blames the PIC for trying to cut flight time, save money, and just be more efficient even though the rules restrict him from doing this. All of the flcs that fly this route on the A-320 are domestic flcs. They are not used to international rules. Therefore, when the flight crew was offered a shorter routing they accepted it thinking their only deficiency was their lack of communications. In truth, the aircraft was not certified for ETOPS operation even if they had HF capability. The ARTCC led the mistake by offering them a shorter route and to make the shorter route acceptable told the flight crew how to make their position reports on VHF. That technique was to relay reports by 121.5 to other aircraft and they were able to relay the reports to the proper radios. Reporter was surprised that ARTCC would do this but feels ARTCC was bending over backwards to make this routing work. In the way of cockpit resource management, there was not much because of limited communications. However, there was an experienced captain in the crew rest area that knew what was proper but he was never consulted by the flight crew. The reporter, flight dispatcher, asked the flight crew to land at bermuda for fuel. They didn't fuel, but it gave the dispatch a chance to get the aircraft back into a proper flight path. The dispatcher was criticized for not being more forceful to keep the flight crew within the non-ETOPS flight area by his company. Reporter was not or never made aware that ZBW and ZNY set this route for the flight. Supplemental information from acn 297758: I was the dispatcher who planned the route. The flight left at XA30. My shift was over at xboo. After I left flight air carrier was rerted by ATC and the flight crew accepted a route bos, slatn A632 bda A432 dpp, sju. This was an illegal route for this type of aircraft. The dispatcher who relieved me told the crew not to take this route because they are only VHF equipped, not HF, so they would have no communication. The crew were illegal to accept this route, the dispatcher told them not to accept the route but they did anyway. I had them fueled properly. The flight had to land in bda get fuel then go back to the united states coast and go back on their original routing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON-ETOPS ACFT CLRED TO FLY AN ETOPS ROUTE.

Narrative: FLT BB BOS-SJU DISPATCHED IFR WITHOUT HF COM RADIOS VIA LUCOS, SEY, HTO, J174. DIW, AR7 PANAL, AR3 NUCAR DIRECT GTK, A555 IDAHO, RTE 6 DIRECT. ON CLB HANDED OFF TO ZBW CLRED DIRECT ATK AND TOLD WE HAD A RERTE FROM NEW YORK, COPIED AND REPROGRAMMED THE NEW RTE -- CONTINUING CLB TO CRUISE ALT OF FL350. LOOKED AT RTE -- SEEMED A WAY OUT FOR VHF COM, SO ASKED CTR IF THIS WAS A HF RTE IF SO WE DID NOT HAVE HF ABOARD. BOS CALLED NY AND REPLIED THAT THEY WOULD APPROVE US OVER THE RTE BY RELAYING OUR POS THROUGH OTHER ACFT USING 121.5. THEY ASKED US IF WE WERE OVERWATER EQUIPPED AND WE REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. WE ASKED REASON FOR RERTE AND WERE TOLD OUR REQUESTED RTE WAS SATURATED. A LITTLE LATER WE WERE OFFERED A RETURN TO OUR ORIGINAL ROUTING. THE NEW ROUTING, ACK, SLATN, A632 BDA, G432 DORADO, DDP, SJU, SHOWED ABOUT :15 LESS FLYING TIME AND A COMMENSURATE FUEL SAVING. WE SENT ACARS MESSAGE TO MSP DISPATCH AND GOT A PHONE PATCH TO CONFIRM NEW RTE AND GET NEW FUEL FIGURES. TALKED ABOUT VHF RELAYS -- LOST RADIO AND ACARS CONTACT AS WE TALKED. HOWEVER A KK RELAYED THE FUEL FIGURES TO US. APCHING BDA RETURNED TO ACARS COVERAGE -- GAVE POS RPT TO COMPANY. WE WERE TOLD TO DIVERT TO BDA AND LAND, AND THAT IF WE CONTINUED ON CLRED ROUTING WE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF FAR 121-161 (ETOPS REGS). IF WE TURNED W FROM BDA AND RETURNED TO A NON ETOPS ROUTING WE WOULD ADD APPROX AN HR AND OBVIOUSLY COMPROMISE OUR FUEL RESERVES. WE LANDED BDA TALKED TO DISPATCH ON THE PHONE, REFUELED RECEIVED NEW PAPERWORK INCLUDING A NEW DISPATCH RELEASE WITH A W ROUTING VIA R14 MANNA, DIRECT 30N 7320W, DIRECT ELKAS, G431 DDP DIRECT. WE NEED BETTER TRAINING ON ETOPS -- WHAT ARE ETOPS RTES SO WE CAN AVOID THEM. WE SHOULD NOT SEND ACFT ON LONG RANGE FLTS WITHOUT HF COM SO THAT COM CAN BE MAINTAINED WITH DISPATCH RESULTING IN BETTER COM AND DECISIONS. I THINK WE WERE LED ASTRAY BY A CLRNC THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF A LOA (WHICH I FOUND OUT ABOUT AFTER THE FACT) THAT SAYS ATC WILL NOT RTE ACR NARROW BODY ACFT OVER THE RTE. DISPATCH SEEMED TO AGREE WITH THE RERTE BY GIVING US NEW FUEL BURN FIGURES. LACK OF CONTINUOUS COM COMPLICATED MATTERS. FROM NOW ON I'LL BE A LOT MORE CRITICAL OF RE- RTES REGARDLESS OF ASSURANCES FROM OUTSIDE PARTIES. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 297811: ZNY SUPVR CALLED ZBW RESTRICTING ALL ACFT ENTERING ZNY'S AIRSPACE TO CARIBBEAN DESTS TO ENTER VIA SLATN A632 BDA, ETC. ACFT WAS RERTED WITHOUT PROPER OVERWATER EQUIP. I WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO VIOLATE ACFT FOR NOT HAVING HF RADIOS. ACFT HAD TO LAND BDA FOR FUEL. ACFT WAS NOT RATED FOR ETOPS (EXTENDED TWIN OPS OVER WATER). HAD THIS FLT EXPERIENCED ANY PROBS, PLT HAD NO WAY OF DIRECT COMS, AND ACFT WAS NOT CERTIFIED FOR RTE ASSIGNED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 297517: BOS ARTCC RERTED ACR FROM A320 NON-HF/NON-ETOPS, ON A RTE PRESCRIBED BY THE 'WATERS' LOA WITH NYC. THE LOA IS SUPPOSED TO EXEMPT ACR BECAUSE OUR ACFT ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH COM AND OVERWATER REQUIREMENTS. THE CREW ACCEPTED THE RERTE AFTER BEING OFFERED BACKUP VHF COMS PROCS, NOT KNOWING ABOUT THE ETOPS AREA S OF BDA. I TOLD ATC TO PUT THEM BACK ON THE FILED RTE. WHEN ATC ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS, THE CREW DECLINED AND CONTINUED ON THE ILLEGAL RTE. COM WAS LOST, BOTH VHF AND ACARS, SHORTLY THEREAFTER. BACKUP PROCS OF USING 121.5 MHZ FOR POS RELAYS WERE USED. THE ACFT RE-ENTERED ACARS RANGE N OF BDA, AND I RELEASED THE FLT TO BDA, CITING FAR 121.161 AS THE REASON. AFTER REFUELING AND FILING A RTE WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE FAR, THE FLT DEPARTED BDA VIA R14. ATC OFFERED TO USE THE SAME VHF PROCS DESCRIBED EARLIER FOR POS RPTS. THE FLT COMPLETED THE BDA-SJU LEG EXACTLY AS PLANNED AND THE COMS WORKED PERFECTLY. EVEN THOUGH THIS RTE IS IN THE HF AREA OF THE ATLANTIC, I COULD FIND NO REASON, REG, OR COMPANY PROC WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW OP USING STATED BACKUP VHF PROCS. LATER, I WAS INFORMED THAT ACR OP SPECS PROHIBIT NON-HF OP ON THE SELECTED RTE, ALTHOUGH THAT PART OF OUR OPS-SPECS IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR DISPATCH REVIEW. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THIS WAS A LARGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ALL INVOLVED. HE BLAMES THE PIC FOR TRYING TO CUT FLT TIME, SAVE MONEY, AND JUST BE MORE EFFICIENT EVEN THOUGH THE RULES RESTRICT HIM FROM DOING THIS. ALL OF THE FLCS THAT FLY THIS RTE ON THE A-320 ARE DOMESTIC FLCS. THEY ARE NOT USED TO INTL RULES. THEREFORE, WHEN THE FLC WAS OFFERED A SHORTER ROUTING THEY ACCEPTED IT THINKING THEIR ONLY DEFICIENCY WAS THEIR LACK OF COMS. IN TRUTH, THE ACFT WAS NOT CERTIFIED FOR ETOPS OP EVEN IF THEY HAD HF CAPABILITY. THE ARTCC LED THE MISTAKE BY OFFERING THEM A SHORTER RTE AND TO MAKE THE SHORTER RTE ACCEPTABLE TOLD THE FLC HOW TO MAKE THEIR POS RPTS ON VHF. THAT TECHNIQUE WAS TO RELAY RPTS BY 121.5 TO OTHER ACFT AND THEY WERE ABLE TO RELAY THE RPTS TO THE PROPER RADIOS. RPTR WAS SURPRISED THAT ARTCC WOULD DO THIS BUT FEELS ARTCC WAS BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE THIS ROUTING WORK. IN THE WAY OF COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT, THERE WAS NOT MUCH BECAUSE OF LIMITED COMS. HOWEVER, THERE WAS AN EXPERIENCED CAPT IN THE CREW REST AREA THAT KNEW WHAT WAS PROPER BUT HE WAS NEVER CONSULTED BY THE FLC. THE RPTR, FLT DISPATCHER, ASKED THE FLC TO LAND AT BERMUDA FOR FUEL. THEY DIDN'T FUEL, BUT IT GAVE THE DISPATCH A CHANCE TO GET THE ACFT BACK INTO A PROPER FLT PATH. THE DISPATCHER WAS CRITICIZED FOR NOT BEING MORE FORCEFUL TO KEEP THE FLC WITHIN THE NON-ETOPS FLT AREA BY HIS COMPANY. RPTR WAS NOT OR NEVER MADE AWARE THAT ZBW AND ZNY SET THIS RTE FOR THE FLT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 297758: I WAS THE DISPATCHER WHO PLANNED THE RTE. THE FLT LEFT AT XA30. MY SHIFT WAS OVER AT XBOO. AFTER I LEFT FLT ACR WAS RERTED BY ATC AND THE FLC ACCEPTED A RTE BOS, SLATN A632 BDA A432 DPP, SJU. THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL RTE FOR THIS TYPE OF ACFT. THE DISPATCHER WHO RELIEVED ME TOLD THE CREW NOT TO TAKE THIS RTE BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY VHF EQUIPPED, NOT HF, SO THEY WOULD HAVE NO COM. THE CREW WERE ILLEGAL TO ACCEPT THIS RTE, THE DISPATCHER TOLD THEM NOT TO ACCEPT THE RTE BUT THEY DID ANYWAY. I HAD THEM FUELED PROPERLY. THE FLT HAD TO LAND IN BDA GET FUEL THEN GO BACK TO THE UNITED STATES COAST AND GO BACK ON THEIR ORIGINAL ROUTING.

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.