A B737-100 captain discovered that the aircraft navigation equipment was not appropriate to the filed routing that he accepted from dispatch. As a result, the flight crew was late in starting their turn toward the next fix. Track deviation.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	330042
Time
Date	199603
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : bty
State Reference	NV
Altitude	msl bound lower : 28000 msl bound upper : 28000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sfo
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-100
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : direct enroute airway : zoa
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 17000 flight time type : 6000
ASRS Report	330042
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course flight crew : overcame equipment problem other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other

Narrative:

I as the captain, prior to the flight, signed for the flight release at operations. The routing looked correct and I proceeded to the aircraft. Our company dispatching system, insures us that our routing system will not allow us to file an 'illegal' flight plan. Our filed flight plan routing was: drake 6 departure (phx), drk, J92 to lidat direct hyp, HYP3 arrival, sjc. Our aircraft was a B737-100, navigation equipment was VOR (no RNAV equipment installed). Upon reaching lidat intersection I was continuing north on J92. ZOA called us and asked us when we were going to go to hyp (el nido). The distance between lidat and hyp is 150 NM and this direct routing borders a restr area and hyp VOR is either a low or terminal facility. We, as the crew, were 10 mi past lidat when we completed our turn to hyp. No known air traffic conflict took place. The routing of this flight required a coordination with ATC because of the lack of adequate navaids between lidat and hyp. In the future, I will not accept this routing unless I have RNAV equipment installed.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-100 CAPT DISCOVERED THAT THE ACFT NAV EQUIP WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO THE FILED ROUTING THAT HE ACCEPTED FROM DISPATCH. AS A RESULT, THE FLC WAS LATE IN STARTING THEIR TURN TOWARD THE NEXT FIX. TRACK DEV.

Narrative: I AS THE CAPT, PRIOR TO THE FLT, SIGNED FOR THE FLT RELEASE AT OPS. THE ROUTING LOOKED CORRECT AND I PROCEEDED TO THE ACFT. OUR COMPANY DISPATCHING SYS, INSURES US THAT OUR ROUTING SYS WILL NOT ALLOW US TO FILE AN 'ILLEGAL' FLT PLAN. OUR FILED FLT PLAN ROUTING WAS: DRAKE 6 DEP (PHX), DRK, J92 TO LIDAT DIRECT HYP, HYP3 ARR, SJC. OUR ACFT WAS A B737-100, NAV EQUIP WAS VOR (NO RNAV EQUIP INSTALLED). UPON REACHING LIDAT INTXN I WAS CONTINUING N ON J92. ZOA CALLED US AND ASKED US WHEN WE WERE GOING TO GO TO HYP (EL NIDO). THE DISTANCE BTWN LIDAT AND HYP IS 150 NM AND THIS DIRECT ROUTING BORDERS A RESTR AREA AND HYP VOR IS EITHER A LOW OR TERMINAL FACILITY. WE, AS THE CREW, WERE 10 MI PAST LIDAT WHEN WE COMPLETED OUR TURN TO HYP. NO KNOWN AIR TFC CONFLICT TOOK PLACE. THE ROUTING OF THIS FLT REQUIRED A COORD WITH ATC BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ADEQUATE NAVAIDS BTWN LIDAT AND HYP. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS ROUTING UNLESS I HAVE RNAV EQUIP INSTALLED.

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.