Narrative:

We were crossing the atlantic ocean en route to paris, france. Our flight plan called for the last 3 fixes along the oceanic route to be 53n20w, 52n15w and dolip intersection. I was looking over the arrival into paris, and my copilot was working the radio. At the time that this incident occurred, we were assigned to and using an HF radio frequency and working with shanwick oceanic control. At 53n20w my copilot gave our position report and provided a time estimate to 52n15w. By now we had passed 20 west and were flying to 52n15w. During the course of the position report, the controller gave the indication that we should be flying to 53N. I don't recall the exact conversation, but it seemed clear to me that he was expecting us to fly to 53N instead of 52N. My fear at this point was that my copilot may have misunderstood the clearance when he picked it up in gander, new foundland. Therefore, we removed 52n15w from the GPS/FMS and replaced it with 53n15w. We then turned left approximately 20 degrees to hit the fix. My copilot provided the controller with a new ETA to 53n15w. A short time after we changed course, the controller recontacted us and again asked for our time estimate to 53n15w. We again gave him the ETA and he acknowledged. There was no further communication with shanwick after that as they had given us a VHF frequency to contact shannon radar on prior to 15W. Prior to reaching 15W, we were called by shannon on VHF and assigned a transponder squawk. The controller confirmed that he had radar contact and cleared us from present position directly to annet intersection, some 400 mi to our southeast and on course to paris. He then asked for an explanation as to why we exited the oceanic airspace at 53N instead of 52N as our flight plan called for. I explained that we understood that we were expected to fly to 53N, so that's what we did. He said he was subjecting us to inquiries and gave me another frequency for shanwick. I provided them with the same explanation that I gave to shannon controller. He told me that there would be an investigation for 'gross navigation error.' since I was doing something else when the conversation between the shanwick controller and my copilot began, I don't know exactly what was said. I do know that whatever it was caused me to remove 52n15w from the GPS and replace it with 53n15w, then turn left 20-30 degrees to hit the fix. I also know that on at least two, and possibly three separate occasions 53n15w was read back to the controller and acknowledged by him. This included two time estimates to 53n15w. If these were incorrect, it seems he should have brought it to our attention. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter said that he had not heard the first officer's exact conversation after the position report at 53N/20W with their estimate for 52N/15W. The cockpit of a learjet is noisy and the crew were not wearing headsets, but were using the speakers instead. The PIC stated that their ground speed was very high and there was a sense of urgency as he thought that perhaps there was now traffic at their assigned 52N/15W position so turned the aircraft towards the 53N/15W position. It was a true 'catch 22' situation. He remembers the shanwick operator saying something like: 'I believe we show you cleared to 53N/15W...' reporter admits to not having received a 'formal' amendment to his clearance, just a lot of inferring. The transcript of the tape has been forwarded to london for review. The FAA has been notified of this alleged violation. The first officer had no statements to make to the captain. The reporter is a part time commercial pilot, his full time profession is non flying. He has made at least 250 atlantic xings so is not a novice. The part 135 operator has already made a judgement in this case against him and is making him fly a 'free' trip to europe as punishment for the 'violation.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LR36 FLC EXPERIENCES A GROSS NAV ERROR AND IS SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION AFTER CHANGING THEIR NEXT WAYPOINT FROM 52N15W TO 53N15W. THIS WAS SUPPOSEDLY IN ACCORD WITH THE WISHES OF SHANWICK RADIO (FSS) DURING THE POS RPT AT 53N20W. THE PIC WAS NOT CLR ON THE PHRASEOLOGY AS HE WAS NOT ON THE HF FREQ WITH THE FO. THE FLT WAS CHALLENGED BY SHANNON'S CTLR AFTER RADAR IDENT APCHING 53N15W.

Narrative: WE WERE XING THE ATLANTIC OCEAN ENRTE TO PARIS, FRANCE. OUR FLT PLAN CALLED FOR THE LAST 3 FIXES ALONG THE OCEANIC RTE TO BE 53N20W, 52N15W AND DOLIP INTXN. I WAS LOOKING OVER THE ARR INTO PARIS, AND MY COPLT WAS WORKING THE RADIO. AT THE TIME THAT THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED, WE WERE ASSIGNED TO AND USING AN HF RADIO FREQ AND WORKING WITH SHANWICK OCEANIC CTL. AT 53N20W MY COPLT GAVE OUR POS RPT AND PROVIDED A TIME ESTIMATE TO 52N15W. BY NOW WE HAD PASSED 20 WEST AND WERE FLYING TO 52N15W. DURING THE COURSE OF THE POS RPT, THE CTLR GAVE THE INDICATION THAT WE SHOULD BE FLYING TO 53N. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT CONVERSATION, BUT IT SEEMED CLR TO ME THAT HE WAS EXPECTING US TO FLY TO 53N INSTEAD OF 52N. MY FEAR AT THIS POINT WAS THAT MY COPLT MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE CLRNC WHEN HE PICKED IT UP IN GANDER, NEW FOUNDLAND. THEREFORE, WE REMOVED 52N15W FROM THE GPS/FMS AND REPLACED IT WITH 53N15W. WE THEN TURNED L APPROX 20 DEGS TO HIT THE FIX. MY COPLT PROVIDED THE CTLR WITH A NEW ETA TO 53N15W. A SHORT TIME AFTER WE CHANGED COURSE, THE CTLR RECONTACTED US AND AGAIN ASKED FOR OUR TIME ESTIMATE TO 53N15W. WE AGAIN GAVE HIM THE ETA AND HE ACKNOWLEDGED. THERE WAS NO FURTHER COM WITH SHANWICK AFTER THAT AS THEY HAD GIVEN US A VHF FREQ TO CONTACT SHANNON RADAR ON PRIOR TO 15W. PRIOR TO REACHING 15W, WE WERE CALLED BY SHANNON ON VHF AND ASSIGNED A XPONDER SQUAWK. THE CTLR CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD RADAR CONTACT AND CLRED US FROM PRESENT POS DIRECTLY TO ANNET INTXN, SOME 400 MI TO OUR SE AND ON COURSE TO PARIS. HE THEN ASKED FOR AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WE EXITED THE OCEANIC AIRSPACE AT 53N INSTEAD OF 52N AS OUR FLT PLAN CALLED FOR. I EXPLAINED THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE EXPECTED TO FLY TO 53N, SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. HE SAID HE WAS SUBJECTING US TO INQUIRIES AND GAVE ME ANOTHER FREQ FOR SHANWICK. I PROVIDED THEM WITH THE SAME EXPLANATION THAT I GAVE TO SHANNON CTLR. HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION FOR 'GROSS NAV ERROR.' SINCE I WAS DOING SOMETHING ELSE WHEN THE CONVERSATION BTWN THE SHANWICK CTLR AND MY COPLT BEGAN, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID. I DO KNOW THAT WHATEVER IT WAS CAUSED ME TO REMOVE 52N15W FROM THE GPS AND REPLACE IT WITH 53N15W, THEN TURN L 20-30 DEGS TO HIT THE FIX. I ALSO KNOW THAT ON AT LEAST TWO, AND POSSIBLY THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS 53N15W WAS READ BACK TO THE CTLR AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY HIM. THIS INCLUDED TWO TIME ESTIMATES TO 53N15W. IF THESE WERE INCORRECT, IT SEEMS HE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR SAID THAT HE HAD NOT HEARD THE FO'S EXACT CONVERSATION AFTER THE POS RPT AT 53N/20W WITH THEIR ESTIMATE FOR 52N/15W. THE COCKPIT OF A LEARJET IS NOISY AND THE CREW WERE NOT WEARING HEADSETS, BUT WERE USING THE SPEAKERS INSTEAD. THE PIC STATED THAT THEIR GND SPD WAS VERY HIGH AND THERE WAS A SENSE OF URGENCY AS HE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THERE WAS NOW TFC AT THEIR ASSIGNED 52N/15W POS SO TURNED THE ACFT TOWARDS THE 53N/15W POS. IT WAS A TRUE 'CATCH 22' SIT. HE REMEMBERS THE SHANWICK OPERATOR SAYING SOMETHING LIKE: 'I BELIEVE WE SHOW YOU CLRED TO 53N/15W...' RPTR ADMITS TO NOT HAVING RECEIVED A 'FORMAL' AMENDMENT TO HIS CLRNC, JUST A LOT OF INFERRING. THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO LONDON FOR REVIEW. THE FAA HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS ALLEGED VIOLATION. THE FO HAD NO STATEMENTS TO MAKE TO THE CAPT. THE RPTR IS A PART TIME COMMERCIAL PLT, HIS FULL TIME PROFESSION IS NON FLYING. HE HAS MADE AT LEAST 250 ATLANTIC XINGS SO IS NOT A NOVICE. THE PART 135 OPERATOR HAS ALREADY MADE A JUDGEMENT IN THIS CASE AGAINST HIM AND IS MAKING HIM FLY A 'FREE' TRIP TO EUROPE AS PUNISHMENT FOR THE 'VIOLATION.'

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.