 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
B767 crew flew the wrong route after the company filed a revised flight plan without advising the crew.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 517883 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200107 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 0001 To 0600 |
| Place | |
| State Reference | KS |
| Altitude | msl single value : 35000 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zkc.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | cruise : level |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time type : 1845 |
| ASRS Report | 517883 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 6500 flight time type : 843 |
| ASRS Report | 517891 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : company policies non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : radar other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Company |
| Primary Problem | Company |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Flight plan forecast release 01 route was: ord.mzv.J18.albert.sln.J18.gck.J110.ALS.pgs.J64.civet.CIVET4. Pre departure clearance departure clearance filed route was: ord mzv J18 albert./.lax. Revised segment was: none. En route over gcn, I turned onto J110 to ALS whereupon the controller asked where we were going. After the first officer replied, the controller said that his information showed us on a different route that would take us to the tnp.PDZ4, but that he would change this to agree with our stated route. We queried our dispatcher who replied it seems that a second flight plan was driven to increase your altitude, and when it did, skypath programming slightly revised your route. Aside from the obvious problem of 2 different rtes being generated under the rubic rls 01, I think there is room for improvement of the pre departure clearance that is sent over the ACARS. Unlike direct contact with clearance delivery, there is no need for the verbal shorthand cleared as filed (./.) as part of the filed route. Instead, the entire route should be on the pre departure clearance printout. This would give the crew a chance to catch either an unknown route change such as ours, or an entry error of the correct route (in the FMC). Improvement in the pre departure clearance system might also reduce occasions when the crew must call for a full route clearance. Supplemental information from acn 517891: while in cruise, ZKC asked what fix we were proceeding to. We were on our filed flight plan, but ATC had a different routing. We queried dispatch, only to learn we had a second flight plan that was driven to increase the altitude. The company produced a different route. Dispatch said it would check with programmers to see why a different flight plan was filed. I also verified ACARS and paperwork data to match flight. Although we were on our correct route, and there wasn't a conflict or loss of separation, the potential did exist.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B767 CREW FLEW THE WRONG RTE AFTER THE COMPANY FILED A REVISED FLT PLAN WITHOUT ADVISING THE CREW.
Narrative: FLT PLAN FORECAST RELEASE 01 RTE WAS: ORD.MZV.J18.ALBERT.SLN.J18.GCK.J110.ALS.PGS.J64.CIVET.CIVET4. PDC DEP CLRNC FILED RTE WAS: ORD MZV J18 ALBERT./.LAX. REVISED SEGMENT WAS: NONE. ENRTE OVER GCN, I TURNED ONTO J110 TO ALS WHEREUPON THE CTLR ASKED WHERE WE WERE GOING. AFTER THE FO REPLIED, THE CTLR SAID THAT HIS INFO SHOWED US ON A DIFFERENT RTE THAT WOULD TAKE US TO THE TNP.PDZ4, BUT THAT HE WOULD CHANGE THIS TO AGREE WITH OUR STATED RTE. WE QUERIED OUR DISPATCHER WHO REPLIED IT SEEMS THAT A SECOND FLT PLAN WAS DRIVEN TO INCREASE YOUR ALT, AND WHEN IT DID, SKYPATH PROGRAMMING SLIGHTLY REVISED YOUR RTE. ASIDE FROM THE OBVIOUS PROB OF 2 DIFFERENT RTES BEING GENERATED UNDER THE RUBIC RLS 01, I THINK THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE PDC THAT IS SENT OVER THE ACARS. UNLIKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH CLRNC DELIVERY, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE VERBAL SHORTHAND CLRED AS FILED (./.) AS PART OF THE FILED RTE. INSTEAD, THE ENTIRE RTE SHOULD BE ON THE PDC PRINTOUT. THIS WOULD GIVE THE CREW A CHANCE TO CATCH EITHER AN UNKNOWN RTE CHANGE SUCH AS OURS, OR AN ENTRY ERROR OF THE CORRECT RTE (IN THE FMC). IMPROVEMENT IN THE PDC SYS MIGHT ALSO REDUCE OCCASIONS WHEN THE CREW MUST CALL FOR A FULL RTE CLRNC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 517891: WHILE IN CRUISE, ZKC ASKED WHAT FIX WE WERE PROCEEDING TO. WE WERE ON OUR FILED FLT PLAN, BUT ATC HAD A DIFFERENT ROUTING. WE QUERIED DISPATCH, ONLY TO LEARN WE HAD A SECOND FLT PLAN THAT WAS DRIVEN TO INCREASE THE ALT. THE COMPANY PRODUCED A DIFFERENT RTE. DISPATCH SAID IT WOULD CHK WITH PROGRAMMERS TO SEE WHY A DIFFERENT FLT PLAN WAS FILED. I ALSO VERIFIED ACARS AND PAPERWORK DATA TO MATCH FLT. ALTHOUGH WE WERE ON OUR CORRECT RTE, AND THERE WASN'T A CONFLICT OR LOSS OF SEPARATION, THE POTENTIAL DID EXIST.
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.