Air taxi flight crew issued a crossing restr to a fix which was not on the high altitude chart, not ...

Attributes
ACN	348705
Time
Date	199609
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : pia
State Reference	IL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 13000 msl bound upper : 23000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zau
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	cruise other descent other
Route In Use	enroute : direct enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 1200
ASRS Report	348705
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : crossing restriction not met non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

In cruise at FL230 (filed altitude was FL370, limited by ATC due to 'sector saturation'), aircraft was given clearance to 'cross plano intersection at 13000 ft.' clearance was accepted. Crew found plano intersection after several mins of looking, not on high chart, any chicago area STAR, nor was it part of clearance. After entering into GNS unit (older unit without permanent database) crew found out they were beyond plano intersection and not at 13000 ft MSL. Told to expedite descent to 11000 ft. Did so. No mention of not making crossing restr by ATC or crew. How to avoid in future: 1) crew should not 'automatically' accept clearance. 2) ATC should not assume that every aircraft has full database long-range navigation equipment. It appears to me that clearance was given that would not allow any time to 'find' cleared-to fix. 3) clearance given initially on ground was not complete. If a fix is known to be part of a descent/arrival procedure (it was not in this case) or if a fix is commonly used by ATC (apparently it was in this case) it should be part of the clearance. 4) if #3 above is not possible, last min crossing restr should not be given. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states there was no discussion with ATC. Reporter's issue is the last min issuance of a crossing altitude with a fix that is not to be found easily. If this fix is used as part of an arrival then it should be included in the arrival, not thrown at the flight crew 1 1/2 mins before reaching the fix. Flight crew received radar vectors to a visual approach beyond this point. Flight was from stl to ord/palwaukee. Reporter states that a similar experience occurred about a week later on a reverse flight from ord to stl. They were assigned some obscure fix they had never heard before. This was not a crossing fix, but was very difficult to find and caused quite some confusion. Reporter's concern is that this is becoming more common.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIR TAXI FLC ISSUED A XING RESTR TO A FIX WHICH WAS NOT ON THE HIGH ALT CHART, NOT ON A STAR, NOT IN DATABASE. BY THE TIME THEY LOCATED THE FIX THEY WERE BEYOND IT.

Narrative: IN CRUISE AT FL230 (FILED ALT WAS FL370, LIMITED BY ATC DUE TO 'SECTOR SATURATION'), ACFT WAS GIVEN CLRNC TO 'CROSS PLANO INTXN AT 13000 FT.' CLRNC WAS ACCEPTED. CREW FOUND PLANO INTXN AFTER SEVERAL MINS OF LOOKING, NOT ON HIGH CHART, ANY CHICAGO AREA STAR, NOR WAS IT PART OF CLRNC. AFTER ENTERING INTO GNS UNIT (OLDER UNIT WITHOUT PERMANENT DATABASE) CREW FOUND OUT THEY WERE BEYOND PLANO INTXN AND NOT AT 13000 FT MSL. TOLD TO EXPEDITE DSCNT TO 11000 FT. DID SO. NO MENTION OF NOT MAKING XING RESTR BY ATC OR CREW. HOW TO AVOID IN FUTURE: 1) CREW SHOULD NOT 'AUTOMATICALLY' ACCEPT CLRNC. 2) ATC SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT EVERY ACFT HAS FULL DATABASE LONG-RANGE NAV EQUIP. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT CLRNC WAS GIVEN THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY TIME TO 'FIND' CLRED-TO FIX. 3) CLRNC GIVEN INITIALLY ON GND WAS NOT COMPLETE. IF A FIX IS KNOWN TO BE PART OF A DSCNT/ARR PROC (IT WAS NOT IN THIS CASE) OR IF A FIX IS COMMONLY USED BY ATC (APPARENTLY IT WAS IN THIS CASE) IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE CLRNC. 4) IF #3 ABOVE IS NOT POSSIBLE, LAST MIN XING RESTR SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION WITH ATC. RPTR'S ISSUE IS THE LAST MIN ISSUANCE OF A XING ALT WITH A FIX THAT IS NOT TO BE FOUND EASILY. IF THIS FIX IS USED AS PART OF AN ARR THEN IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ARR, NOT THROWN AT THE FLC 1 1/2 MINS BEFORE REACHING THE FIX. FLC RECEIVED RADAR VECTORS TO A VISUAL APCH BEYOND THIS POINT. FLT WAS FROM STL TO ORD/PALWAUKEE. RPTR STATES THAT A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE OCCURRED ABOUT A WK LATER ON A REVERSE FLT FROM ORD TO STL. THEY WERE ASSIGNED SOME OBSCURE FIX THEY HAD NEVER HEARD BEFORE. THIS WAS NOT A XING FIX, BUT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND AND CAUSED QUITE SOME CONFUSION. RPTR'S CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS BECOMING MORE COMMON.

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.

Air taxi flight crew issued a crossing restr to a fix which was not on the high altitude chart, not on a STAR, not in database. By the time they located the fix they were beyond it.