Narrative:

I dispatched a flight from iad to mco on an over land route and it was subsequently given an ATC reroute over ilm climb AR1 hobee AR6 orl, which is an overwater route. The crew accepted the reroute without realizing that they were in a none-overwater B757-200. The crew advised me via ACARS of the reroute after they were already more than 50NM offshore. At that time I advised them that their aircraft was not overwater qualified. The flight continued to mco and landed uneventfully. Contributing factors were ATC's issuance of an overwater reroute without first confirming that the aircraft and crew could accept an overwater route, also the crew did not notify me of the reroute until they were already over water. I also did not notice that the aircraft had accepted a reroute until they advised me (I had the aircraft and route displayed on my aircraft situation display). Perhaps overwater qualified flts should be filed with ATC using a different aircraft type prefix although it would still be up to the crew to confirm whether the cabin and flcs were qualified. Crew training for fleets with both overwater and non-overwater aircraft should probably emphasize that they must confirm that the aircraft, flight crew and cabin crew must all be overwater qualified before accepting an overwater route. Cabin crew qualifications should be part of the preflight briefing for flts that may go overwater.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRLINE DISPATCHER'S RPT ON A B757-200 FLT THAT ACCEPTED A REROUTE TO AN OFF SHORE ROUTE THAT EXCEEDED THE ACFT'S AND CREW'S OVERWATER QUALIFICATIONS FROM CLB, NC TO MCO, FO.

Narrative: I DISPATCHED A FLT FROM IAD TO MCO ON AN OVER LAND ROUTE AND IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN AN ATC REROUTE OVER ILM CLB AR1 HOBEE AR6 ORL, WHICH IS AN OVERWATER ROUTE. THE CREW ACCEPTED THE REROUTE WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THEY WERE IN A NONE-OVERWATER B757-200. THE CREW ADVISED ME VIA ACARS OF THE REROUTE AFTER THEY WERE ALREADY MORE THAN 50NM OFFSHORE. AT THAT TIME I ADVISED THEM THAT THEIR ACFT WAS NOT OVERWATER QUALIFIED. THE FLT CONTINUED TO MCO AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE ATC'S ISSUANCE OF AN OVERWATER REROUTE WITHOUT FIRST CONFIRMING THAT THE ACFT AND CREW COULD ACCEPT AN OVERWATER ROUTE, ALSO THE CREW DID NOT NOTIFY ME OF THE REROUTE UNTIL THEY WERE ALREADY OVER WATER. I ALSO DID NOT NOTICE THAT THE ACFT HAD ACCEPTED A REROUTE UNTIL THEY ADVISED ME (I HAD THE ACFT AND ROUTE DISPLAYED ON MY ACFT SIT DISPLAY). PERHAPS OVERWATER QUALIFIED FLTS SHOULD BE FILED WITH ATC USING A DIFFERENT ACFT TYPE PREFIX ALTHOUGH IT WOULD STILL BE UP TO THE CREW TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE CABIN AND FLCS WERE QUALIFIED. CREW TRAINING FOR FLEETS WITH BOTH OVERWATER AND NON-OVERWATER ACFT SHOULD PROBABLY EMPHASIZE THAT THEY MUST CONFIRM THAT THE ACFT, FLC AND CABIN CREW MUST ALL BE OVERWATER QUALIFIED BEFORE ACCEPTING AN OVERWATER ROUTE. CABIN CREW QUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE PART OF THE PREFLT BRIEFING FOR FLTS THAT MAY GO OVERWATER.

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.