Narrative:

Very late night approach to boston logan. We decided to fly the approach to runway 33L using our new approach navigation procedures. The ATIS was saying to expect the VOR/DME GPS runway 33L. We pulled up this approach from our computer database and inserted it. Upon checking on with bos approach we requested the VOR/DME runway 33L with a turn on just outside yardd. Approach said ok and gave us a heading. When turned on a base approach, told us we were 5 mi from beeje and cleared for the VOR/DME GPS runway 33L. Unbeknownst to us there are 2 approachs, one named the (GPS) VOR/DME runway 33L and the other named VOR DME or GPS a. We understood the clearance to be for the (GPS) VOR DME runway 33L which has an inbound course of 342 degrees, while the approach controller understood the clearance to be for the VOR DME or GPS a approach which has an inbound course of 310 degrees. Since we were looking to intercept the 342 degree course we overshot the 310 degree course. Tower told us we were left of course, at which time we reported field in sight and proceeded for the visual approach. One further point of confusion: the final approach fix for the VOR DME or GPS-a approach is beeje and the FAF for the (GPS) VOR DME runway 33L is meach. These sound very similar and combined with the almost identical approach names creates a strong potential for confusion. At least the approachs should be renamed and probably the FAF's as well. Supplemental information from acn 310132: I briefed an 'approach navigation' (RNAV) VOR/DME runway 33L approach and inserted it into the FMGC. The first officer told approach that we would like to intercept the final outside 'yardd' (on the VOR/DME approach to runway 33L). Approach control stated fine, whatever we wanted. This would facilitate capturing appr- navigation. We were asked later about the length of final we desired and again requested 'outside of yardd.' this is found only on the (GPS) VOR/DME runway 33L approach plate. Approach turned us onto a base leg of 290 degrees and said '5 mi to beeje cleared VOR/DME or GPS-a 33L approach.' we missed the 'alpha' and the rest of the clearance sounded like what we were expecting and loaded the FMGC. Yardd is not on the VOR/DME or GPS-a approach and the FAF meach sounds a lot like beeje. Passing through the 310 degree final course for the VOR/DME or GPS-a approach trying to intercept the 342 degree final course for the VOR/DME 33L approach, tower told us we had flown through final and sent us back to approach. We subsequently reported the airport and runway in sight and were cleared a visual approach. We landed without conflict or incident. (Too late to reload another approach in the FMGC.)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X FLEW WRONG APCH.

Narrative: VERY LATE NIGHT APCH TO BOSTON LOGAN. WE DECIDED TO FLY THE APCH TO RWY 33L USING OUR NEW APCH NAV PROCS. THE ATIS WAS SAYING TO EXPECT THE VOR/DME GPS RWY 33L. WE PULLED UP THIS APCH FROM OUR COMPUTER DATABASE AND INSERTED IT. UPON CHKING ON WITH BOS APCH WE REQUESTED THE VOR/DME RWY 33L WITH A TURN ON JUST OUTSIDE YARDD. APCH SAID OK AND GAVE US A HDG. WHEN TURNED ON A BASE APCH, TOLD US WE WERE 5 MI FROM BEEJE AND CLRED FOR THE VOR/DME GPS RWY 33L. UNBEKNOWNST TO US THERE ARE 2 APCHS, ONE NAMED THE (GPS) VOR/DME RWY 33L AND THE OTHER NAMED VOR DME OR GPS A. WE UNDERSTOOD THE CLRNC TO BE FOR THE (GPS) VOR DME RWY 33L WHICH HAS AN INBOUND COURSE OF 342 DEGS, WHILE THE APCH CTLR UNDERSTOOD THE CLRNC TO BE FOR THE VOR DME OR GPS A APCH WHICH HAS AN INBOUND COURSE OF 310 DEGS. SINCE WE WERE LOOKING TO INTERCEPT THE 342 DEG COURSE WE OVERSHOT THE 310 DEG COURSE. TWR TOLD US WE WERE L OF COURSE, AT WHICH TIME WE RPTED FIELD IN SIGHT AND PROCEEDED FOR THE VISUAL APCH. ONE FURTHER POINT OF CONFUSION: THE FINAL APCH FIX FOR THE VOR DME OR GPS-A APCH IS BEEJE AND THE FAF FOR THE (GPS) VOR DME RWY 33L IS MEACH. THESE SOUND VERY SIMILAR AND COMBINED WITH THE ALMOST IDENTICAL APCH NAMES CREATES A STRONG POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION. AT LEAST THE APCHS SHOULD BE RENAMED AND PROBABLY THE FAF'S AS WELL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 310132: I BRIEFED AN 'APCH NAV' (RNAV) VOR/DME RWY 33L APCH AND INSERTED IT INTO THE FMGC. THE FO TOLD APCH THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL OUTSIDE 'YARDD' (ON THE VOR/DME APCH TO RWY 33L). APCH CTL STATED FINE, WHATEVER WE WANTED. THIS WOULD FACILITATE CAPTURING APPR- NAV. WE WERE ASKED LATER ABOUT THE LENGTH OF FINAL WE DESIRED AND AGAIN REQUESTED 'OUTSIDE OF YARDD.' THIS IS FOUND ONLY ON THE (GPS) VOR/DME RWY 33L APCH PLATE. APCH TURNED US ONTO A BASE LEG OF 290 DEGS AND SAID '5 MI TO BEEJE CLRED VOR/DME OR GPS-A 33L APCH.' WE MISSED THE 'ALPHA' AND THE REST OF THE CLRNC SOUNDED LIKE WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING AND LOADED THE FMGC. YARDD IS NOT ON THE VOR/DME OR GPS-A APCH AND THE FAF MEACH SOUNDS A LOT LIKE BEEJE. PASSING THROUGH THE 310 DEG FINAL COURSE FOR THE VOR/DME OR GPS-A APCH TRYING TO INTERCEPT THE 342 DEG FINAL COURSE FOR THE VOR/DME 33L APCH, TWR TOLD US WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH FINAL AND SENT US BACK TO APCH. WE SUBSEQUENTLY RPTED THE ARPT AND RWY IN SIGHT AND WERE CLRED A VISUAL APCH. WE LANDED WITHOUT CONFLICT OR INCIDENT. (TOO LATE TO RELOAD ANOTHER APCH IN THE FMGC.)

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.