Narrative:

Flight from sju to dtw was filed on the following overwater route: 'utahs G431, leton, R763 bacus AR8 ecg.' after arrival in dtw, crew was informed by dispatch that a portion of this route did not comply with the requirement that the A320 remain within 60 mins (single engine/still air) of a suitable divert airfield. While en route between fixes 'nance' and 'dribl' the crew used INS to check distances to potential divert airfields and found that they were all in excess of 345 NM from aircraft's present position. By this time it was too late to correct the error. Contributing factors: 1) crew inexperience on this route. First time flying dtw-sju-dtw for both captain and first officer. 2) sju station personnel did not have flight paperwork printed when crew arrived at aircraft. 3) flight preparation rushed due to time consuming process of contacting maintenance control via new york commercial radio and phone patch for the purpose of deferring open logbook entries. 4) false confidence in our dispatchers that file these rtes every day. As captain, I feel that I should have caught this error prior to departure. However, after reviewing the information available to me, I found that there was no definitive way for me to determine which rtes were not usable by non ETOPS certified 2-ENG aircraft. It would have been extremely helpful if the en route charts for this area had information clearly printed on them showing which rtes fall outside the 60 mins to divert distance to suitable airfields. Supplemental information from acn 424340: I filed an ICAO flight plan from sju to dtw overwater on a route that did not comply with ETOPS guidelines of 60 mins flying time in still air on 1 engine. I was distraction in my planning due to a line of thunderstorms en route and payload restrs. The aircraft flew the route and remained beyond ETOPS limits for approximately 6 mins during cruise. This could have been avoided had I noticed the special coding on the route database listing that the route I selected was only usable by aircraft having more than 2 engines. The problem was discovered by my relieving dispatcher and I have reviewed the company's route database coding and ETOPS policy. Supplemental information from acn 424339: when I relieved the dispatcher, the flight was airborne for over an hour. When I discovered his routing was outside our limits, he had already passed that area. I informed the crew via commercial radio to call me upon arrival at the destination. We discussed the error and agreed to file NASA reports. I advised the dispatcher who planned the flight to do so also. This route has been blocked so it cannot be used in error again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A NON ETOPS A320 IS FILED AND FLIES OVER AN ETOPS OVERWATER RTE. CREW AND DISPATCHER NOTE THE ERROR AND HAVE A REVIEW MEETING POSTFLT.

Narrative: FLT FROM SJU TO DTW WAS FILED ON THE FOLLOWING OVERWATER RTE: 'UTAHS G431, LETON, R763 BACUS AR8 ECG.' AFTER ARR IN DTW, CREW WAS INFORMED BY DISPATCH THAT A PORTION OF THIS RTE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE A320 REMAIN WITHIN 60 MINS (SINGLE ENG/STILL AIR) OF A SUITABLE DIVERT AIRFIELD. WHILE ENRTE BTWN FIXES 'NANCE' AND 'DRIBL' THE CREW USED INS TO CHK DISTANCES TO POTENTIAL DIVERT AIRFIELDS AND FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL IN EXCESS OF 345 NM FROM ACFT'S PRESENT POS. BY THIS TIME IT WAS TOO LATE TO CORRECT THE ERROR. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) CREW INEXPERIENCE ON THIS RTE. FIRST TIME FLYING DTW-SJU-DTW FOR BOTH CAPT AND FO. 2) SJU STATION PERSONNEL DID NOT HAVE FLT PAPERWORK PRINTED WHEN CREW ARRIVED AT ACFT. 3) FLT PREPARATION RUSHED DUE TO TIME CONSUMING PROCESS OF CONTACTING MAINT CTL VIA NEW YORK COMMERCIAL RADIO AND PHONE PATCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFERRING OPEN LOGBOOK ENTRIES. 4) FALSE CONFIDENCE IN OUR DISPATCHERS THAT FILE THESE RTES EVERY DAY. AS CAPT, I FEEL THAT I SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS ERROR PRIOR TO DEP. HOWEVER, AFTER REVIEWING THE INFO AVAILABLE TO ME, I FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO DEFINITIVE WAY FOR ME TO DETERMINE WHICH RTES WERE NOT USABLE BY NON ETOPS CERTIFIED 2-ENG ACFT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF THE ENRTE CHARTS FOR THIS AREA HAD INFO CLRLY PRINTED ON THEM SHOWING WHICH RTES FALL OUTSIDE THE 60 MINS TO DIVERT DISTANCE TO SUITABLE AIRFIELDS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 424340: I FILED AN ICAO FLT PLAN FROM SJU TO DTW OVERWATER ON A RTE THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH ETOPS GUIDELINES OF 60 MINS FLYING TIME IN STILL AIR ON 1 ENG. I WAS DISTR IN MY PLANNING DUE TO A LINE OF TSTMS ENRTE AND PAYLOAD RESTRS. THE ACFT FLEW THE RTE AND REMAINED BEYOND ETOPS LIMITS FOR APPROX 6 MINS DURING CRUISE. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD I NOTICED THE SPECIAL CODING ON THE RTE DATABASE LISTING THAT THE RTE I SELECTED WAS ONLY USABLE BY ACFT HAVING MORE THAN 2 ENGS. THE PROB WAS DISCOVERED BY MY RELIEVING DISPATCHER AND I HAVE REVIEWED THE COMPANY'S RTE DATABASE CODING AND ETOPS POLICY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 424339: WHEN I RELIEVED THE DISPATCHER, THE FLT WAS AIRBORNE FOR OVER AN HR. WHEN I DISCOVERED HIS ROUTING WAS OUTSIDE OUR LIMITS, HE HAD ALREADY PASSED THAT AREA. I INFORMED THE CREW VIA COMMERCIAL RADIO TO CALL ME UPON ARR AT THE DEST. WE DISCUSSED THE ERROR AND AGREED TO FILE NASA RPTS. I ADVISED THE DISPATCHER WHO PLANNED THE FLT TO DO SO ALSO. THIS RTE HAS BEEN BLOCKED SO IT CANNOT BE USED IN ERROR AGAIN.

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.