Narrative:

I was called by daily scheduling. I was assigned to fly abc-dca, change aircraft in xyz, then fly xyz-dca. The plan was that another captain was to relieve me in dca. The flight from abc-xyz was routine. Upon arrival in xyz, I called our dispatcher and was thoroughly briefed on the specific arrival procedures for entering dca airspace. I proceeded then to brief the entire crew. 2 sky marshals then introduced themselves and briefed us all on the special nature of their procedures. Our alternate was planned for iad. We departed abc airport. The first officer was the PF and I was handling radio communications, checklists and PA announcements. We were handed off from abc departure to ZNY, then to iad approach control. Having been briefed by dispatch on the subject, we were being extremely careful not to communicate the 'special message' to anyone other than dca approach. We were then assigned a frequency change that both of us construed to be 'bwi approach.' my subsequent radio transmission was 'baltimore approach, flight XXX one-two thousand.' to my surprise, the reply received flight 'flight XXX, washington approach, you are reclred to dulles airport.' when I realized that I was actually speaking to dca and not bwi, my next transmission was the exact verbiage -- word for word -- required in the new procedure. There was no response from ATC for approximately 1 min. To our disappointment, his reply was not 'say again initial transmission' as procedure suggests, but a reiteration of 'flight XXX, you are reclred to dulles.' we diverted to iad. We were cleared and released by fbi and other law enforcement officials. We then proceeded to a gate where our passenger could deplane and be transported to dca airport via ground transportation. As the captain of this flight, I accept responsibility for the misunderstanding that occurred. With that, I must add that I feel the dca approach controllers were over zealous and unreasonable. In light of the fact that I addressed my first transmission to 'baltimore approach,' I don't feel as though the radio communication in question should have been considered the triggering initial transmission to 'washington approach.' my actual initial transmission that was addressed to 'washington approach' did in fact contain the exact verbiage required for the procedure and should have been approved. Their overreaction caused needless inconvenience and anxiety for our passenger and expense to our company. For true security to exist, the procedure should be modified to allow for a separate code for each flight entering dca. The present procedure could be dangerously compromised by anyone with a $25.00 VHF receiver.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 FLC ARE DIRECTED TO DIVERT TO IAD INSTEAD OF DCA BECAUSE OF INCORRECT, FAA COORD PHRASEOLOGY UTILIZATION FOR ACFT INTENDING TO LAND DCA.

Narrative: I WAS CALLED BY DAILY SCHEDULING. I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY ABC-DCA, CHANGE ACFT IN XYZ, THEN FLY XYZ-DCA. THE PLAN WAS THAT ANOTHER CAPT WAS TO RELIEVE ME IN DCA. THE FLT FROM ABC-XYZ WAS ROUTINE. UPON ARR IN XYZ, I CALLED OUR DISPATCHER AND WAS THOROUGHLY BRIEFED ON THE SPECIFIC ARR PROCS FOR ENTERING DCA AIRSPACE. I PROCEEDED THEN TO BRIEF THE ENTIRE CREW. 2 SKY MARSHALS THEN INTRODUCED THEMSELVES AND BRIEFED US ALL ON THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THEIR PROCS. OUR ALTERNATE WAS PLANNED FOR IAD. WE DEPARTED ABC ARPT. THE FO WAS THE PF AND I WAS HANDLING RADIO COMS, CHKLISTS AND PA ANNOUNCEMENTS. WE WERE HANDED OFF FROM ABC DEP TO ZNY, THEN TO IAD APCH CTL. HAVING BEEN BRIEFED BY DISPATCH ON THE SUBJECT, WE WERE BEING EXTREMELY CAREFUL NOT TO COMMUNICATE THE 'SPECIAL MESSAGE' TO ANYONE OTHER THAN DCA APCH. WE WERE THEN ASSIGNED A FREQ CHANGE THAT BOTH OF US CONSTRUED TO BE 'BWI APCH.' MY SUBSEQUENT RADIO XMISSION WAS 'BALTIMORE APCH, FLT XXX ONE-TWO THOUSAND.' TO MY SURPRISE, THE REPLY RECEIVED FLT 'FLT XXX, WASHINGTON APCH, YOU ARE RECLRED TO DULLES ARPT.' WHEN I REALIZED THAT I WAS ACTUALLY SPEAKING TO DCA AND NOT BWI, MY NEXT XMISSION WAS THE EXACT VERBIAGE -- WORD FOR WORD -- REQUIRED IN THE NEW PROC. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM ATC FOR APPROX 1 MIN. TO OUR DISAPPOINTMENT, HIS REPLY WAS NOT 'SAY AGAIN INITIAL XMISSION' AS PROC SUGGESTS, BUT A REITERATION OF 'FLT XXX, YOU ARE RECLRED TO DULLES.' WE DIVERTED TO IAD. WE WERE CLRED AND RELEASED BY FBI AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. WE THEN PROCEEDED TO A GATE WHERE OUR PAX COULD DEPLANE AND BE TRANSPORTED TO DCA ARPT VIA GND TRANSPORTATION. AS THE CAPT OF THIS FLT, I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT OCCURRED. WITH THAT, I MUST ADD THAT I FEEL THE DCA APCH CTLRS WERE OVER ZEALOUS AND UNREASONABLE. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I ADDRESSED MY FIRST XMISSION TO 'BALTIMORE APCH,' I DON'T FEEL AS THOUGH THE RADIO COM IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE TRIGGERING INITIAL XMISSION TO 'WASHINGTON APCH.' MY ACTUAL INITIAL XMISSION THAT WAS ADDRESSED TO 'WASHINGTON APCH' DID IN FACT CONTAIN THE EXACT VERBIAGE REQUIRED FOR THE PROC AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED. THEIR OVERREACTION CAUSED NEEDLESS INCONVENIENCE AND ANXIETY FOR OUR PAX AND EXPENSE TO OUR COMPANY. FOR TRUE SECURITY TO EXIST, THE PROC SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR A SEPARATE CODE FOR EACH FLT ENTERING DCA. THE PRESENT PROC COULD BE DANGEROUSLY COMPROMISED BY ANYONE WITH A $25.00 VHF RECEIVER.

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.