 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A FK100 flight crew misses the addition of another VOR waypoint on their computer flight plan that was not updated within the FMS. Flight starts to bypass the new VOR on the route until ATC gives them a call south of aml, va.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 475130 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200006 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | navaid : aml.vortac |
| State Reference | VA |
| Altitude | msl single value : 28000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zdc.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Fokker 100 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | other other vortac |
| Flight Phase | cruise : level |
| Route In Use | enroute : direct |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 1500 |
| ASRS Report | 475130 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : clearance non adherence : company policies non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued advisory flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Company Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
First flight for the month with a seasoned first officer. Our route for jun/mon/00, was rdu-swf (raleigh to stewart-newburgh). Both of us have not flown this route for an extended period of time. I looked over the flight plan/release. I then inserted the departure/arrival airport to bring up the stored computer flight plan from the FMC (flight management computer). The computer based flight plans are updated every 28 days. After I inserted rdu/swf, I would see a 1, 2 or 3 line script of the stored flight plan, displaying victor airways or jet rtes plus any intxns involved in getting to the destination. This particular route requires a lot of intersection airway switching to get to swf because it avoids passing through the 3 major new york airport arrival corridors for traffic from the west. I compared the actual release flight plan with the computer based one and I thought they were exactly the same. But, I missed one added VOR between fak and aml that in previous times going there it was not part of the flight plan. Previously we would go direct between fak and aml. Now, they added 'brv' VOR as direct routing between fak and aml. My first officer also reviewed the entire flight plan by scrolling through the FMC flight plan pages verifying the accuracy, and even he missed it. En route, ZDC detected our error and gave us direct to brv after we were proceeding direct to aml from fak. I do not believe we caused any conflict since the controller was more quizzical in his inquiry of the aircraft's course. I think this mistake is a case of wanting/expecting to see a certain route (from previously flown) and then convincing the part of our brain that the flight plan in the computer data base was correct as on file with ATC.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A FK100 FLC MISSES THE ADDITION OF ANOTHER VOR WAYPOINT ON THEIR COMPUTER FLT PLAN THAT WAS NOT UPDATED WITHIN THE FMS. FLT STARTS TO BYPASS THE NEW VOR ON THE RTE UNTIL ATC GIVES THEM A CALL S OF AML, VA.
Narrative: FIRST FLT FOR THE MONTH WITH A SEASONED FO. OUR RTE FOR JUN/MON/00, WAS RDU-SWF (RALEIGH TO STEWART-NEWBURGH). BOTH OF US HAVE NOT FLOWN THIS RTE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. I LOOKED OVER THE FLT PLAN/RELEASE. I THEN INSERTED THE DEP/ARR ARPT TO BRING UP THE STORED COMPUTER FLT PLAN FROM THE FMC (FLT MGMNT COMPUTER). THE COMPUTER BASED FLT PLANS ARE UPDATED EVERY 28 DAYS. AFTER I INSERTED RDU/SWF, I WOULD SEE A 1, 2 OR 3 LINE SCRIPT OF THE STORED FLT PLAN, DISPLAYING VICTOR AIRWAYS OR JET RTES PLUS ANY INTXNS INVOLVED IN GETTING TO THE DEST. THIS PARTICULAR RTE REQUIRES A LOT OF INTXN AIRWAY SWITCHING TO GET TO SWF BECAUSE IT AVOIDS PASSING THROUGH THE 3 MAJOR NEW YORK ARPT ARR CORRIDORS FOR TFC FROM THE W. I COMPARED THE ACTUAL RELEASE FLT PLAN WITH THE COMPUTER BASED ONE AND I THOUGHT THEY WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. BUT, I MISSED ONE ADDED VOR BTWN FAK AND AML THAT IN PREVIOUS TIMES GOING THERE IT WAS NOT PART OF THE FLT PLAN. PREVIOUSLY WE WOULD GO DIRECT BTWN FAK AND AML. NOW, THEY ADDED 'BRV' VOR AS DIRECT ROUTING BTWN FAK AND AML. MY FO ALSO REVIEWED THE ENTIRE FLT PLAN BY SCROLLING THROUGH THE FMC FLT PLAN PAGES VERIFYING THE ACCURACY, AND EVEN HE MISSED IT. ENRTE, ZDC DETECTED OUR ERROR AND GAVE US DIRECT TO BRV AFTER WE WERE PROCEEDING DIRECT TO AML FROM FAK. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE CAUSED ANY CONFLICT SINCE THE CTLR WAS MORE QUIZZICAL IN HIS INQUIRY OF THE ACFT'S COURSE. I THINK THIS MISTAKE IS A CASE OF WANTING/EXPECTING TO SEE A CERTAIN RTE (FROM PREVIOUSLY FLOWN) AND THEN CONVINCING THE PART OF OUR BRAIN THAT THE FLT PLAN IN THE COMPUTER DATA BASE WAS CORRECT AS ON FILE WITH ATC.
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.