Narrative:

I was captain on an airbus A310 ferry flight from opf (opalocka airport, miami, fl) to lfbd (bordeaux, france) on april 1997. I have extensive experience in operating in the north atlantic airspace. Starting mar/xx/97, the new reduced vertical separation plan (rvsm) began. It involves 1000 ft separation in mnps airspace between FL330 and FL370. I had received training on this new plan the week before during recurrent and had flown 2 trips to germany prior to this flight, one being on the first day of rvsm operations. Needless to say, all the oceanic controllers and pilots had the new programs (rvsm) on the mind that week. This particular airplane was not certified to be in rvsm airspace, thus we planned to be above rvsm airspace at FL390 and later FL410. On contacting new york oceanic cta (ZNY) on HF, I was asked if I was certified to operate in rvsm/mnps airspace. I answered 'negative' to this first of about 2 or 3 requests from new york. New york reclred us via that night's track X, which we received and read back. We then climbed from FL370 to FL390 and gave an estimate on when we would be able to be level at FL410. ZNY then cleared us to be level at FL410 by 41 degrees north on track X...which we were. I believe there was one more query by new york as to our status reference to operating in mnps/rvsm airspace, to which I replied 'negative' to -- not knowing what the problem was since we were already at FL410 -- well above the new program's FL370 ceiling. Once contacting gander oceanic cta (czqx) the same type questions were asked of me. Gander asked at what time I could be at FL430, to which I replied we could not make FL430 due to weight, etc. By this time I was sure something was amiss and I was truly 'stumped' by all the questions directed to us about our ability to be on the tracks. Gander SELCAL'ed us (again) and the controller asked why we had flight planned ourselves into mnps airspace without being 'qualified.' I told him I didn't understand the problem since we were at FL390 and FL410. I obviously was 'not getting' something and there was no follow on statements or discussion with this controller or the previous ones (ny). Gander then SELCAL'ed again and advised us (me) that a violation was being filed on our flight that night for operating in mnps/rvsm airspace not qualified. On arrival at bordeaux I called gander ocean cta and spoke with the manager. By this time I had figured out 'what the problem' was and it was the lack of the equipment suffix on the ICAO flight plan. For this flight we had used commercial flight planning services. Normally I have the services of a company dispatcher and on this flight the new format took a bit of getting used to. This along with the attention given to the new rvsm procedures had me 'bore sighted' to thinking all the queries referring to our ability to be in that airspace were concerned with altitude selection, not lateral navigation ability! The equipment suffix for mnps (lateral navigation) is the letter 'X,' rvsm is the letter 'west.' the 'X' was inadvertently left out of our flight plan and I was thinking the controllers were asking questions about our vertical qualification...not even considering the lateral question. Ultimately it was my mistake not checking the aircraft type and equipment suffixes, however, 1 or 2 more confirming statements or questions from the controllers would have cleared up the whole thing. Also contributing was my unfamiliarity with the flight plan format from commercial thereby 'throwing me out of my usual routine.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A310 ON FERRY FLT OPF-LFBD, FRANCE. ACFT WAS NOT EQUIPPED TO FLY REDUCED VERT SEPARATION RTES WHICH INVOLVED ALT FL330 TO FL370. WAS OPERATING AT FL390 AND FL410 WHEN QUERIED BY ZNY AND LATER BY CZQX IF QUALIFIED FOR THE RTE. ON ARR LFBD CALLED CZQX AND FOUND THE COMMERCIAL PREPARED FLT PLAN HAD NOT SHOWN AN 'X' TO INDICATE ACFT NOT EQUIPPED FOR ROUTING.

Narrative: I WAS CAPT ON AN AIRBUS A310 FERRY FLT FROM OPF (OPALOCKA ARPT, MIAMI, FL) TO LFBD (BORDEAUX, FRANCE) ON APRIL 1997. I HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN OPERATING IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC AIRSPACE. STARTING MAR/XX/97, THE NEW REDUCED VERT SEPARATION PLAN (RVSM) BEGAN. IT INVOLVES 1000 FT SEPARATION IN MNPS AIRSPACE BTWN FL330 AND FL370. I HAD RECEIVED TRAINING ON THIS NEW PLAN THE WK BEFORE DURING RECURRENT AND HAD FLOWN 2 TRIPS TO GERMANY PRIOR TO THIS FLT, ONE BEING ON THE FIRST DAY OF RVSM OPS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ALL THE OCEANIC CTLRS AND PLTS HAD THE NEW PROGRAMS (RVSM) ON THE MIND THAT WK. THIS PARTICULAR AIRPLANE WAS NOT CERTIFIED TO BE IN RVSM AIRSPACE, THUS WE PLANNED TO BE ABOVE RVSM AIRSPACE AT FL390 AND LATER FL410. ON CONTACTING NEW YORK OCEANIC CTA (ZNY) ON HF, I WAS ASKED IF I WAS CERTIFIED TO OPERATE IN RVSM/MNPS AIRSPACE. I ANSWERED 'NEGATIVE' TO THIS FIRST OF ABOUT 2 OR 3 REQUESTS FROM NEW YORK. NEW YORK RECLRED US VIA THAT NIGHT'S TRACK X, WHICH WE RECEIVED AND READ BACK. WE THEN CLBED FROM FL370 TO FL390 AND GAVE AN ESTIMATE ON WHEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BE LEVEL AT FL410. ZNY THEN CLRED US TO BE LEVEL AT FL410 BY 41 DEGS N ON TRACK X...WHICH WE WERE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE MORE QUERY BY NEW YORK AS TO OUR STATUS REF TO OPERATING IN MNPS/RVSM AIRSPACE, TO WHICH I REPLIED 'NEGATIVE' TO -- NOT KNOWING WHAT THE PROB WAS SINCE WE WERE ALREADY AT FL410 -- WELL ABOVE THE NEW PROGRAM'S FL370 CEILING. ONCE CONTACTING GANDER OCEANIC CTA (CZQX) THE SAME TYPE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF ME. GANDER ASKED AT WHAT TIME I COULD BE AT FL430, TO WHICH I REPLIED WE COULD NOT MAKE FL430 DUE TO WT, ETC. BY THIS TIME I WAS SURE SOMETHING WAS AMISS AND I WAS TRULY 'STUMPED' BY ALL THE QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO US ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO BE ON THE TRACKS. GANDER SELCAL'ED US (AGAIN) AND THE CTLR ASKED WHY WE HAD FLT PLANNED OURSELVES INTO MNPS AIRSPACE WITHOUT BEING 'QUALIFIED.' I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE PROB SINCE WE WERE AT FL390 AND FL410. I OBVIOUSLY WAS 'NOT GETTING' SOMETHING AND THERE WAS NO FOLLOW ON STATEMENTS OR DISCUSSION WITH THIS CTLR OR THE PREVIOUS ONES (NY). GANDER THEN SELCAL'ED AGAIN AND ADVISED US (ME) THAT A VIOLATION WAS BEING FILED ON OUR FLT THAT NIGHT FOR OPERATING IN MNPS/RVSM AIRSPACE NOT QUALIFIED. ON ARR AT BORDEAUX I CALLED GANDER OCEAN CTA AND SPOKE WITH THE MGR. BY THIS TIME I HAD FIGURED OUT 'WHAT THE PROB' WAS AND IT WAS THE LACK OF THE EQUIP SUFFIX ON THE ICAO FLT PLAN. FOR THIS FLT WE HAD USED COMMERCIAL FLT PLANNING SVCS. NORMALLY I HAVE THE SVCS OF A COMPANY DISPATCHER AND ON THIS FLT THE NEW FORMAT TOOK A BIT OF GETTING USED TO. THIS ALONG WITH THE ATTN GIVEN TO THE NEW RVSM PROCS HAD ME 'BORE SIGHTED' TO THINKING ALL THE QUERIES REFERRING TO OUR ABILITY TO BE IN THAT AIRSPACE WERE CONCERNED WITH ALT SELECTION, NOT LATERAL NAV ABILITY! THE EQUIP SUFFIX FOR MNPS (LATERAL NAV) IS THE LETTER 'X,' RVSM IS THE LETTER 'W.' THE 'X' WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT OF OUR FLT PLAN AND I WAS THINKING THE CTLRS WERE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR VERT QUALIFICATION...NOT EVEN CONSIDERING THE LATERAL QUESTION. ULTIMATELY IT WAS MY MISTAKE NOT CHKING THE ACFT TYPE AND EQUIP SUFFIXES, HOWEVER, 1 OR 2 MORE CONFIRMING STATEMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE CTLRS WOULD HAVE CLRED UP THE WHOLE THING. ALSO CONTRIBUTING WAS MY UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE FLT PLAN FORMAT FROM COMMERCIAL THEREBY 'THROWING ME OUT OF MY USUAL ROUTINE.'

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.