Narrative:

Assigned the profile descent (descend via dylan 2 arrival) to 8000 ft. Chart revision dated jan/fri/03 for dylan arrival was current, but not in effect until jan/thu/03. We crossed dqo at published crossing altitude at or above FL200 per the revised arrival. We were queried by the controller at FL200 to confirm our altitude. We responded with FL200. We were then informed of the effective date being jan/thu/03. Other aircraft on the frequency were also confused. No conflict occurred. The old altitude was to cross dqo at or above FL220. The effective date on the commercial chart is published at the top of the page and in black with white lettering (hard to read at night in such small print). Also, this arrival is usually turned sideways for reading which makes the 'effective date' even less obvious as it moves to the right and vertical when placed for reading. The fact that other aircraft were having the same confusion at that time leads me to believe that it was a mistake that could easily be made. A 2000 ft change in a crossing restr in a profile descent is something, in my opinion, that deserves more attention drawn to the change and/or the effective date.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-200 FLC MISSED THE EFFECTIVE DATE ON AN ARR PROC, AND CONSEQUENTLY DSNDED 2000 FT LOWER THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE.

Narrative: ASSIGNED THE PROFILE DSCNT (DSND VIA DYLAN 2 ARR) TO 8000 FT. CHART REVISION DATED JAN/FRI/03 FOR DYLAN ARR WAS CURRENT, BUT NOT IN EFFECT UNTIL JAN/THU/03. WE CROSSED DQO AT PUBLISHED XING ALT AT OR ABOVE FL200 PER THE REVISED ARR. WE WERE QUERIED BY THE CTLR AT FL200 TO CONFIRM OUR ALT. WE RESPONDED WITH FL200. WE WERE THEN INFORMED OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE BEING JAN/THU/03. OTHER ACFT ON THE FREQ WERE ALSO CONFUSED. NO CONFLICT OCCURRED. THE OLD ALT WAS TO CROSS DQO AT OR ABOVE FL220. THE EFFECTIVE DATE ON THE COMMERCIAL CHART IS PUBLISHED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE AND IN BLACK WITH WHITE LETTERING (HARD TO READ AT NIGHT IN SUCH SMALL PRINT). ALSO, THIS ARR IS USUALLY TURNED SIDEWAYS FOR READING WHICH MAKES THE 'EFFECTIVE DATE' EVEN LESS OBVIOUS AS IT MOVES TO THE R AND VERT WHEN PLACED FOR READING. THE FACT THAT OTHER ACFT WERE HAVING THE SAME CONFUSION AT THAT TIME LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE THAT COULD EASILY BE MADE. A 2000 FT CHANGE IN A XING RESTR IN A PROFILE DSCNT IS SOMETHING, IN MY OPINION, THAT DESERVES MORE ATTN DRAWN TO THE CHANGE AND/OR THE EFFECTIVE DATE.

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.