37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 358037 |
Time | |
Date | 199701 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : rno |
State Reference | NV |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : rno |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | climbout : initial |
Route In Use | departure sid : sid |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : instrument |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 8000 flight time type : 2500 |
ASRS Report | 357037 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time total : 10000 |
ASRS Report | 357879 |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | other controllera |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance other |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Departing rno we were cleared via the mustang 4 departure as filed. I verified how we were filed by reviewing in our fom where it is shown as follows: FMG4.fmg J7 boi. I do not fly into rno with much regularity, but I did remember to look very closely at the correct runway and WX requirements in my commercial chart SID selection so when I found the (RENO2.fmg) runway 16L/right, I correlated FMG4 and 2FMG and somehow did not read 'reno 2 departure.' the captain independently picked out the same incorrect departure, so when we briefed the departure, the mistake was not noticed. After a normal departure the controller asked us if we were in the l-hand turn. I reviewed our selected SID and saw no turn. The controller gave us an assigned heading back on course and we continued uneventfully. There was no loss of traffic separation or terrain separation, later verified by the captain when he called the controller from boi. I believe that the large number of similar choices for sids in rno was a contributing factor in addition to similar appearing names. Obviously I will take even more time to verify every word written on sids and stars in the future. If there must be such a large number of sids or stars at a particular airport maybe they could be named by letter or number or named by their respective page number. Currently it is too easy to xref the identify and the name of the departure. 2.fmg versus fmg.4 supplemental information from acn 357879: the procedures in rno are complicated to begin with, to have all of the sids look and be labeled similar is ludicrous! The sids names and headings must be changed.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 FLC BOTH PULL OUT THE WRONG SID AND FAIL TO MAKE A TURN AT 3 DME.
Narrative: DEPARTING RNO WE WERE CLRED VIA THE MUSTANG 4 DEP AS FILED. I VERIFIED HOW WE WERE FILED BY REVIEWING IN OUR FOM WHERE IT IS SHOWN AS FOLLOWS: FMG4.FMG J7 BOI. I DO NOT FLY INTO RNO WITH MUCH REGULARITY, BUT I DID REMEMBER TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THE CORRECT RWY AND WX REQUIREMENTS IN MY COMMERCIAL CHART SID SELECTION SO WHEN I FOUND THE (RENO2.FMG) RWY 16L/R, I CORRELATED FMG4 AND 2FMG AND SOMEHOW DID NOT READ 'RENO 2 DEP.' THE CAPT INDEPENDENTLY PICKED OUT THE SAME INCORRECT DEP, SO WHEN WE BRIEFED THE DEP, THE MISTAKE WAS NOT NOTICED. AFTER A NORMAL DEP THE CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE IN THE L-HAND TURN. I REVIEWED OUR SELECTED SID AND SAW NO TURN. THE CTLR GAVE US AN ASSIGNED HDG BACK ON COURSE AND WE CONTINUED UNEVENTFULLY. THERE WAS NO LOSS OF TFC SEPARATION OR TERRAIN SEPARATION, LATER VERIFIED BY THE CAPT WHEN HE CALLED THE CTLR FROM BOI. I BELIEVE THAT THE LARGE NUMBER OF SIMILAR CHOICES FOR SIDS IN RNO WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN ADDITION TO SIMILAR APPEARING NAMES. OBVIOUSLY I WILL TAKE EVEN MORE TIME TO VERIFY EVERY WORD WRITTEN ON SIDS AND STARS IN THE FUTURE. IF THERE MUST BE SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF SIDS OR STARS AT A PARTICULAR ARPT MAYBE THEY COULD BE NAMED BY LETTER OR NUMBER OR NAMED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE PAGE NUMBER. CURRENTLY IT IS TOO EASY TO XREF THE IDENT AND THE NAME OF THE DEP. 2.FMG VERSUS FMG.4 SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 357879: THE PROCS IN RNO ARE COMPLICATED TO BEGIN WITH, TO HAVE ALL OF THE SIDS LOOK AND BE LABELED SIMILAR IS LUDICROUS! THE SIDS NAMES AND HDGS MUST BE CHANGED.
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.