Non overwater aircraft was given an overwater route.

Attributes
ACN	300640
Time
Date	199503
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zhu
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Super 80
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	cruise other ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	300640
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

At approximately XA15 we were reassigned to flight from dfw to tpa which was rescheduled to depart at XA40. We arrived at the aircraft at approximately XA30 and pulled up the flight plan. Flight plan route was as follows: dfw DALL9 eic J4 mei tlh DARBS1 tpa. Just prior to eic, center cleared us to hrv. When I asked him where, he said 'hrv, just south of new orleans.' I said that our flight plan has us going over jan mei and tlh. He said we are filed over hrv J58 covia blond 2 tpa. When I compared our flight plan with the ACARS clearance, he was correct. Our miscellaneous 14 was the same route as our flight plan. We initially flew the new route and then discovered that this was an overwater route and our aircraft was not overwater equipped. We got clearance back to our original route and continued to destination. Since this discrepancy was detected before reaching eic which was common on both flight plans, no deviation or conflict occurred. If center had not cleared us to hrv prior to reaching eic, we would have turned the wrong way at eic and a conflict could have developed. I was under the impression that if your filed route is changed, then ACARS notifies you to contact clearance for a full route clearance. If this is not the case, I feel that it should be.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON OVERWATER ACFT WAS GIVEN AN OVERWATER RTE.

Narrative: AT APPROX XA15 WE WERE REASSIGNED TO FLT FROM DFW TO TPA WHICH WAS RESCHEDULED TO DEPART AT XA40. WE ARRIVED AT THE ACFT AT APPROX XA30 AND PULLED UP THE FLT PLAN. FLT PLAN RTE WAS AS FOLLOWS: DFW DALL9 EIC J4 MEI TLH DARBS1 TPA. JUST PRIOR TO EIC, CTR CLRED US TO HRV. WHEN I ASKED HIM WHERE, HE SAID 'HRV, JUST S OF NEW ORLEANS.' I SAID THAT OUR FLT PLAN HAS US GOING OVER JAN MEI AND TLH. HE SAID WE ARE FILED OVER HRV J58 COVIA BLOND 2 TPA. WHEN I COMPARED OUR FLT PLAN WITH THE ACARS CLRNC, HE WAS CORRECT. OUR MISC 14 WAS THE SAME RTE AS OUR FLT PLAN. WE INITIALLY FLEW THE NEW RTE AND THEN DISCOVERED THAT THIS WAS AN OVERWATER RTE AND OUR ACFT WAS NOT OVERWATER EQUIPPED. WE GOT CLRNC BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL RTE AND CONTINUED TO DEST. SINCE THIS DISCREPANCY WAS DETECTED BEFORE REACHING EIC WHICH WAS COMMON ON BOTH FLT PLANS, NO DEV OR CONFLICT OCCURRED. IF CTR HAD NOT CLRED US TO HRV PRIOR TO REACHING EIC, WE WOULD HAVE TURNED THE WRONG WAY AT EIC AND A CONFLICT COULD HAVE DEVELOPED. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IF YOUR FILED RTE IS CHANGED, THEN ACARS NOTIFIES YOU TO CONTACT CLRNC FOR A FULL RTE CLRNC. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, I FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE.

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.