Narrative:

Flight plan routing: dfw.DALL4.txk J131 lit.... Pre departure clearance: dfw.DALL4.lit af. Departure cleared us to 040 degree heading to 'intercept the departure.' on departure, we rolled out a little north of the 072 degree radial, for the txk transition. Departure control asked us if we were established on the departure. We said we were about 1/2 mi north of course, correcting south. Departure control then said we were supposed to be on the 062 degree radial, lit transition. They then cleared us direct to ortro on lit transition. We complied. The pre departure clearance said DALL4 - lit and the original flight plan said DALL4.txk J131 lit. During the preflight we had maintenance on APU and engine oil servicing, requiring a new release and all the associated paperwork and confusion. We simply missed the revised departure since they both went through lit. Another factor in missing this particular clearance is, many times a pre departure clearance will come down without the 'cleared as filed' statement (as this one was). Upon inspection, these clrncs are in fact the same as the original flight plan. This is not only at dfw, but throughout the system. It would help a lot to have a pre departure clearance with a new routing noted to actually be a new route. It would have prevented our problem on this flight. Supplemental information from acn 412079: on this date, a tmu rerte was in effect for ZFW to new york area airports, which included overflying sqs, then points east. ZFW tmu was entering new flight plans for affected dfw departures. Instead of entering 'dfw..sqs' as in the rerte, tmu entered 'dfw..txk..sqs.' a pdr then corrected the route to 'dfw..DALL4..sqs.' the aircraft was cleared 'dfw..txk..sqs,' not 'dfw.DALL4.sqs,' including the 3 flts listed above. On departure, the pilot was issued a heading to join the dfw 082 degree radial (the DALL4.sqs) but insisted his clearance was direct txk..sqs. This error by tmu caused confusion between the pilots and D10 and ZFW controllers. ZFW tmu exceeds authority/authorized staffing by approximately 150-200%. This error type is common, yet viewed only as an 'oversight.' by entering rtes which do not accurately describe what needs to be flown, failing to take into account pdr's, pdar's, and continuing to make the same mistakes over and over, the ZFW tmu demonstrates a lack of knowledge pertaining to the airspace in and around ZFW. One would think that with their overstaffing, such errors wold not occur -- but they are routine. This leads to the conclusion that tmu is not properly trained and is unfamiliar with their duties and responsibilities. They are not held accountable for their mistakes as controllers are, even though the error could result in major problems if undetected by real controllers.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG ACR FLC DOES NOT DISCERN PDC CHANGE AND FLIES INCORRECT DEP RTE. ARTCC RADAR CTLR RECOGNIZES INCORRECT ARTCC TFC MGMNT UNIT RERTE AND HAS TO CORRECT MULTIPLE TMU GENERATED CLRNC ERRORS AFTER ACFT ARE AIRBORNE. CTLR CONCERNED WITH TMU STAFFING QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE OF AREA.

Narrative: FLT PLAN ROUTING: DFW.DALL4.TXK J131 LIT.... PDC: DFW.DALL4.LIT AF. DEP CLRED US TO 040 DEG HDG TO 'INTERCEPT THE DEP.' ON DEP, WE ROLLED OUT A LITTLE N OF THE 072 DEG RADIAL, FOR THE TXK TRANSITION. DEP CTL ASKED US IF WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON THE DEP. WE SAID WE WERE ABOUT 1/2 MI N OF COURSE, CORRECTING S. DEP CTL THEN SAID WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE 062 DEG RADIAL, LIT TRANSITION. THEY THEN CLRED US DIRECT TO ORTRO ON LIT TRANSITION. WE COMPLIED. THE PDC SAID DALL4 - LIT AND THE ORIGINAL FLT PLAN SAID DALL4.TXK J131 LIT. DURING THE PREFLT WE HAD MAINT ON APU AND ENG OIL SVCING, REQUIRING A NEW RELEASE AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED PAPERWORK AND CONFUSION. WE SIMPLY MISSED THE REVISED DEP SINCE THEY BOTH WENT THROUGH LIT. ANOTHER FACTOR IN MISSING THIS PARTICULAR CLRNC IS, MANY TIMES A PDC WILL COME DOWN WITHOUT THE 'CLRED AS FILED' STATEMENT (AS THIS ONE WAS). UPON INSPECTION, THESE CLRNCS ARE IN FACT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL FLT PLAN. THIS IS NOT ONLY AT DFW, BUT THROUGHOUT THE SYS. IT WOULD HELP A LOT TO HAVE A PDC WITH A NEW ROUTING NOTED TO ACTUALLY BE A NEW RTE. IT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED OUR PROB ON THIS FLT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 412079: ON THIS DATE, A TMU RERTE WAS IN EFFECT FOR ZFW TO NEW YORK AREA ARPTS, WHICH INCLUDED OVERFLYING SQS, THEN POINTS E. ZFW TMU WAS ENTERING NEW FLT PLANS FOR AFFECTED DFW DEPS. INSTEAD OF ENTERING 'DFW..SQS' AS IN THE RERTE, TMU ENTERED 'DFW..TXK..SQS.' A PDR THEN CORRECTED THE RTE TO 'DFW..DALL4..SQS.' THE ACFT WAS CLRED 'DFW..TXK..SQS,' NOT 'DFW.DALL4.SQS,' INCLUDING THE 3 FLTS LISTED ABOVE. ON DEP, THE PLT WAS ISSUED A HDG TO JOIN THE DFW 082 DEG RADIAL (THE DALL4.SQS) BUT INSISTED HIS CLRNC WAS DIRECT TXK..SQS. THIS ERROR BY TMU CAUSED CONFUSION BTWN THE PLTS AND D10 AND ZFW CTLRS. ZFW TMU EXCEEDS AUTH STAFFING BY APPROX 150-200%. THIS ERROR TYPE IS COMMON, YET VIEWED ONLY AS AN 'OVERSIGHT.' BY ENTERING RTES WHICH DO NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE WHAT NEEDS TO BE FLOWN, FAILING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PDR'S, PDAR'S, AND CONTINUING TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER, THE ZFW TMU DEMONSTRATES A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE PERTAINING TO THE AIRSPACE IN AND AROUND ZFW. ONE WOULD THINK THAT WITH THEIR OVERSTAFFING, SUCH ERRORS WOLD NOT OCCUR -- BUT THEY ARE ROUTINE. THIS LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TMU IS NOT PROPERLY TRAINED AND IS UNFAMILIAR WITH THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THEY ARE NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MISTAKES AS CTLRS ARE, EVEN THOUGH THE ERROR COULD RESULT IN MAJOR PROBS IF UNDETECTED BY REAL CTLRS.

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.