Narrative:

The pilot requested clearance to destination. The flight plan read csg...tiroe...fty. I cleared him 'as filed.' he accepted this clearance. When I switched him to departure, the controller asked if he could navigation to tiroe since he had filed '/a.' the pilot replied 'I can come close, but no, I can't navigation direct.' this pilot either, 1) expected to go to the csg VOR and fly V241 to tiroe (in which case he should have filed that way), or 2) planned on dead reckoning while on an IFR clearance (not acceptable). There seems to be a trend away from following the rules towards doing it the easy way. Also, we need to rename off-airport vors so that it is clear that they are planning to go there first. Ours is 6 mi off the airport and a steady source of confusion. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he believes the reporter just did not plan well since he had only VOR equipment aboard and could not go direct. The more troubling problem is the offset of the VOR location. When he clears someone direct to columbus he never knows if they will go direct to the airport or the VOR. He has several instances where pilots flew to the airport and turned to intercept the airway and found themselves wandering around before they became oriented. There is another VOR, la grange, GA, nearby which has the same problem of an airport identifier but it is not located on the airport. He has asked when these will be changed and receives a nebulous reply that they are being changed one at a time. Reporter was advised of the hotline number.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR RPT REGARDING POOR FLT PLAN FILING BY PLT. HE IS UNABLE TO FLY AS FILED. MAJOR PROB IS THE SAME NAME FOR A VOR AS THE ARPT WHEN THE VOR IS OFF SITE. CONFUSION WHEN CLRED TO THE IDENTIFIER WHETHER THE PLT WILL FLY TO THE ARPT OR THE VOR.

Narrative: THE PLT REQUESTED CLRNC TO DEST. THE FLT PLAN READ CSG...TIROE...FTY. I CLRED HIM 'AS FILED.' HE ACCEPTED THIS CLRNC. WHEN I SWITCHED HIM TO DEP, THE CTLR ASKED IF HE COULD NAV TO TIROE SINCE HE HAD FILED '/A.' THE PLT REPLIED 'I CAN COME CLOSE, BUT NO, I CAN'T NAV DIRECT.' THIS PLT EITHER, 1) EXPECTED TO GO TO THE CSG VOR AND FLY V241 TO TIROE (IN WHICH CASE HE SHOULD HAVE FILED THAT WAY), OR 2) PLANNED ON DEAD RECKONING WHILE ON AN IFR CLRNC (NOT ACCEPTABLE). THERE SEEMS TO BE A TREND AWAY FROM FOLLOWING THE RULES TOWARDS DOING IT THE EASY WAY. ALSO, WE NEED TO RENAME OFF-ARPT VORS SO THAT IT IS CLR THAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO GO THERE FIRST. OURS IS 6 MI OFF THE ARPT AND A STEADY SOURCE OF CONFUSION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE BELIEVES THE RPTR JUST DID NOT PLAN WELL SINCE HE HAD ONLY VOR EQUIP ABOARD AND COULD NOT GO DIRECT. THE MORE TROUBLING PROB IS THE OFFSET OF THE VOR LOCATION. WHEN HE CLRS SOMEONE DIRECT TO COLUMBUS HE NEVER KNOWS IF THEY WILL GO DIRECT TO THE ARPT OR THE VOR. HE HAS SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE PLTS FLEW TO THE ARPT AND TURNED TO INTERCEPT THE AIRWAY AND FOUND THEMSELVES WANDERING AROUND BEFORE THEY BECAME ORIENTED. THERE IS ANOTHER VOR, LA GRANGE, GA, NEARBY WHICH HAS THE SAME PROB OF AN ARPT IDENTIFIER BUT IT IS NOT LOCATED ON THE ARPT. HE HAS ASKED WHEN THESE WILL BE CHANGED AND RECEIVES A NEBULOUS REPLY THAT THEY ARE BEING CHANGED ONE AT A TIME. RPTR WAS ADVISED OF THE HOTLINE NUMBER.

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.