Narrative:

I was observer instructor pilot with a pilot who is to be our new company single pilot (PIC) (he has an ATP and 12000+ hours). On a business flight returning to petersburg, wv (W99), from lexington, nc (exx), we had to pick up our clearance on the ground at exx by remote. The connection was bad and we asked to verify it twice. We were cleared to azell intersection 4000 ft. Just before azell we were cleared to jeane intersection by gso controller. We asked the controller to spell it as we could not locate it on our low altitude en route charts. We were still at 4000 ft. I put jeane intersection into our GPS (kln 90B, IFR certified) but the distance was too great. I had the PIC rechk the spelling and the controller said he had misspelled it and gave us the new spelling which both the PIC and I thought was jeani. We still could not find it in our en route chart and the GPS said it was too far away for our route. The controllers changed, same frequency, and the next controller gave us a 070 degree steer to a fix of 38 mi on the 058 degree radial of gso. I remembered departing from gso other times and looked at a departure procedure chart (quaker 2) and jeany was on that chart. The rest of the flight was uneventful. The first part of the flight I consider unsafe because it kept 2 pilots (aircraft was put on autoplt) heads mostly inside the aircraft. There were other VFR aircraft in the area, some with no electrical system, and because of the density of the traffic in the area that was being controled and our altitude 4000 ft, we could have had a midair. Our GPS system is not user friendly. If our route was known before takeoff, we could have programmed it. If we had been given a higher altitude, we probably would have been out of some smaller aircraft areas. If the approach plates for exx were changed or a departure added and the departure fixes for gso on the en route chart added (low level), it would be a safety factor. I have also encountered other instances where the controller has given routing that was not on the proper altitude en route chart, ie, milie intersection -- near jax, but at upper levels above, say, 14000 ft most planes are in communication or have a transponder and are identifiable. At low level and busy areas with single pilot operation, it is dangerous. Single pilot operations are busy enough, but adding local factors, without being local, lessens the safety factor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A KING AIR FLC IS CONFUSED BY A MISSPELLED INTXN NAME THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM IN THEIR GPS WHEN CLRED FROM AZELL TO JEANY INTXN, NC.

Narrative: I WAS OBSERVER INSTRUCTOR PLT WITH A PLT WHO IS TO BE OUR NEW COMPANY SINGLE PLT (PIC) (HE HAS AN ATP AND 12000+ HRS). ON A BUSINESS FLT RETURNING TO PETERSBURG, WV (W99), FROM LEXINGTON, NC (EXX), WE HAD TO PICK UP OUR CLRNC ON THE GND AT EXX BY REMOTE. THE CONNECTION WAS BAD AND WE ASKED TO VERIFY IT TWICE. WE WERE CLRED TO AZELL INTXN 4000 FT. JUST BEFORE AZELL WE WERE CLRED TO JEANE INTXN BY GSO CTLR. WE ASKED THE CTLR TO SPELL IT AS WE COULD NOT LOCATE IT ON OUR LOW ALT ENRTE CHARTS. WE WERE STILL AT 4000 FT. I PUT JEANE INTXN INTO OUR GPS (KLN 90B, IFR CERTIFIED) BUT THE DISTANCE WAS TOO GREAT. I HAD THE PIC RECHK THE SPELLING AND THE CTLR SAID HE HAD MISSPELLED IT AND GAVE US THE NEW SPELLING WHICH BOTH THE PIC AND I THOUGHT WAS JEANI. WE STILL COULD NOT FIND IT IN OUR ENRTE CHART AND THE GPS SAID IT WAS TOO FAR AWAY FOR OUR RTE. THE CTLRS CHANGED, SAME FREQ, AND THE NEXT CTLR GAVE US A 070 DEG STEER TO A FIX OF 38 MI ON THE 058 DEG RADIAL OF GSO. I REMEMBERED DEPARTING FROM GSO OTHER TIMES AND LOOKED AT A DEP PROC CHART (QUAKER 2) AND JEANY WAS ON THAT CHART. THE REST OF THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. THE FIRST PART OF THE FLT I CONSIDER UNSAFE BECAUSE IT KEPT 2 PLTS (ACFT WAS PUT ON AUTOPLT) HEADS MOSTLY INSIDE THE ACFT. THERE WERE OTHER VFR ACFT IN THE AREA, SOME WITH NO ELECTRICAL SYS, AND BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY OF THE TFC IN THE AREA THAT WAS BEING CTLED AND OUR ALT 4000 FT, WE COULD HAVE HAD A MIDAIR. OUR GPS SYS IS NOT USER FRIENDLY. IF OUR RTE WAS KNOWN BEFORE TKOF, WE COULD HAVE PROGRAMMED IT. IF WE HAD BEEN GIVEN A HIGHER ALT, WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF SOME SMALLER ACFT AREAS. IF THE APCH PLATES FOR EXX WERE CHANGED OR A DEP ADDED AND THE DEP FIXES FOR GSO ON THE ENRTE CHART ADDED (LOW LEVEL), IT WOULD BE A SAFETY FACTOR. I HAVE ALSO ENCOUNTERED OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THE CTLR HAS GIVEN ROUTING THAT WAS NOT ON THE PROPER ALT ENRTE CHART, IE, MILIE INTXN -- NEAR JAX, BUT AT UPPER LEVELS ABOVE, SAY, 14000 FT MOST PLANES ARE IN COM OR HAVE A XPONDER AND ARE IDENTIFIABLE. AT LOW LEVEL AND BUSY AREAS WITH SINGLE PLT OP, IT IS DANGEROUS. SINGLE PLT OPS ARE BUSY ENOUGH, BUT ADDING LCL FACTORS, WITHOUT BEING LCL, LESSENS THE SAFETY FACTOR.

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.