Narrative:

Inbound to rdu on the brade 5 arrival we acknowledged a hand-off from washington center to contact rdu approach. This was in the vicinity of brade intersection. On the initial call to approach; I requested the ILS runway 23R. Approach control did not acknowledge our request and assigned our flight the ILS runway 23L. At some point after passing brade intersection; approach control issued a clearance to proceed direct to docat intersection. The word 'immediately' was not used. This intersection is located on the ILS runway 23 localizer course; 12.1 DME from the rdu VOR. I entered the waypoint name into the FMS and executed. An FMC message appeared in the scratch pad indicating that the waypoint was not contained in the database. I then began looking at the approach plate to determine if I could enter the waypoint using latitude/lon; place bearing/place bearing; or place bearing/distance information. As I was doing this; the flying pilot began a turn in the general direction of the waypoint. I entered the waypoint using the rdu 048 degree radial at 12.1 DME and executed. The flying pilot then engaged LNAV. As the aircraft was executing the turn; the approach controller (I assume the supervisor) called us very agitated that we had not begun the turn as soon as he issued the clearance. The next few xmissions between us were rather intense. I wanted to explain the reason; however; that was not the time to argue the point. We then acknowledged a hand-off to the final controller who assigned runway 23R for landing. Contributing factors: 1) once discovering that docat was not contained in the database; not requesting a radar vector until information was obtained. This may or may not have been an option. I do not recall the volume of radio xmissions occurring at the time. 2) docat intersection not contained in the FMC database; thereby requiring crew to research and manually enter waypoint coordinates to accomplish task. This is not an uncommon occurrence for our mixed fleet of B737-200/300 aircraft conducting far 121 supplemental operations. One commercially supplied navigational database is constructed that may be loaded into all aircraft. The size of the database is based on the FMC with the smallest memory (ie 256K). Our database covers a large geographic area and contains low and high altitude airways and waypoints. The airline then selects specific airports and approach procedures; based on operational needs that will be contained in the database. The number of airports is limited to the remaining available bites after geographic area airways are loaded. Some waypoints associated with approach procedures may not be contained in the database if the associated approach is not in the database. This was the case with the ILS runway 23L approach and docat. The crew has no way of knowing this until they attempt to enter the waypoint into the FMC. Alternate ways of entering waypoint information for waypoints not contained in the database are normally latitude/lon; place bearing/place bearing; or place bearing/distance. The later was used in this event. 3) controller assuming that clearance could be accomplished immediately. Controllers should understand that although aircraft may be filed indicating FMC or GPS capability (ie: /east; /F; /G); it may take the crew time to enter a waypoint if it is not contained in the FMC database. Summary: although the controller indicated that we were not complying with the ATC clearance; I totally disagree and do not feel that any far was violated during the above event. I have been flying for over thirty yrs and have never had a controller imply non compliance due to the amount of time required to enter a waypoint. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised he is qualified on multiple equipment types operated by his employer. Some of the more recent equipment utilizes later fmcs in which greater memory allows complete airways definitions. Earlier aircraft; as in this case; have more limited data immediately available. The need to manually enter waypoints not included in the database is distracting and time consuming. The brade arrival states in both the narrative and graphic displays that; 'the user should expect 'radar vectors to final approach course.' he was anticipating vectors and had not anticipated the need to program docat. Reporter emphasized the desirability for ATC and the pilot in such an event to communicate their needs openly; ie advising ATC of the problem and requesting radar vectors for the approach and for separation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLRED DIRECT TO DOCAT FIX OFF THE BRADE ARR TO RDU; CAPT OF A B737-200 DISCOVERS FIX IS NOT IN THE DATABASE AND MUST BE PROGRAMMED. RESULTING DELAY IN ACTING ON CLRNC IS NOTED BY APCH CTLR.

Narrative: INBOUND TO RDU ON THE BRADE 5 ARR WE ACKNOWLEDGED A HAND-OFF FROM WASHINGTON CTR TO CONTACT RDU APCH. THIS WAS IN THE VICINITY OF BRADE INTXN. ON THE INITIAL CALL TO APCH; I REQUESTED THE ILS RWY 23R. APCH CTL DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR REQUEST AND ASSIGNED OUR FLT THE ILS RWY 23L. AT SOME POINT AFTER PASSING BRADE INTXN; APCH CTL ISSUED A CLRNC TO PROCEED DIRECT TO DOCAT INTXN. THE WORD 'IMMEDIATELY' WAS NOT USED. THIS INTXN IS LOCATED ON THE ILS RWY 23 LOCALIZER COURSE; 12.1 DME FROM THE RDU VOR. I ENTERED THE WAYPOINT NAME INTO THE FMS AND EXECUTED. AN FMC MESSAGE APPEARED IN THE SCRATCH PAD INDICATING THAT THE WAYPOINT WAS NOT CONTAINED IN THE DATABASE. I THEN BEGAN LOOKING AT THE APCH PLATE TO DETERMINE IF I COULD ENTER THE WAYPOINT USING LAT/LON; PLACE BEARING/PLACE BEARING; OR PLACE BEARING/DISTANCE INFO. AS I WAS DOING THIS; THE FLYING PLT BEGAN A TURN IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE WAYPOINT. I ENTERED THE WAYPOINT USING THE RDU 048 DEG RADIAL AT 12.1 DME AND EXECUTED. THE FLYING PLT THEN ENGAGED LNAV. AS THE ACFT WAS EXECUTING THE TURN; THE APCH CTLR (I ASSUME THE SUPVR) CALLED US VERY AGITATED THAT WE HAD NOT BEGUN THE TURN AS SOON AS HE ISSUED THE CLRNC. THE NEXT FEW XMISSIONS BETWEEN US WERE RATHER INTENSE. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON; HOWEVER; THAT WAS NOT THE TIME TO ARGUE THE POINT. WE THEN ACKNOWLEDGED A HAND-OFF TO THE FINAL CTLR WHO ASSIGNED RWY 23R FOR LNDG. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) ONCE DISCOVERING THAT DOCAT WAS NOT CONTAINED IN THE DATABASE; NOT REQUESTING A RADAR VECTOR UNTIL INFO WAS OBTAINED. THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN OPTION. I DO NOT RECALL THE VOLUME OF RADIO XMISSIONS OCCURRING AT THE TIME. 2) DOCAT INTXN NOT CONTAINED IN THE FMC DATABASE; THEREBY REQUIRING CREW TO RESEARCH AND MANUALLY ENTER WAYPOINT COORDINATES TO ACCOMPLISH TASK. THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON OCCURRENCE FOR OUR MIXED FLEET OF B737-200/300 ACFT CONDUCTING FAR 121 SUPPLEMENTAL OPS. ONE COMMERCIALLY SUPPLIED NAVIGATIONAL DATABASE IS CONSTRUCTED THAT MAY BE LOADED INTO ALL ACFT. THE SIZE OF THE DATABASE IS BASED ON THE FMC WITH THE SMALLEST MEMORY (IE 256K). OUR DATABASE COVERS A LARGE GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND CONTAINS LOW AND HIGH ALT AIRWAYS AND WAYPOINTS. THE AIRLINE THEN SELECTS SPECIFIC ARPTS AND APCH PROCS; BASED ON OPERATIONAL NEEDS THAT WILL BE CONTAINED IN THE DATABASE. THE NUMBER OF ARPTS IS LIMITED TO THE REMAINING AVAILABLE BITES AFTER GEOGRAPHIC AREA AIRWAYS ARE LOADED. SOME WAYPOINTS ASSOCIATED WITH APCH PROCS MAY NOT BE CONTAINED IN THE DATABASE IF THE ASSOCIATED APCH IS NOT IN THE DATABASE. THIS WAS THE CASE WITH THE ILS RWY 23L APCH AND DOCAT. THE CREW HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THIS UNTIL THEY ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE WAYPOINT INTO THE FMC. ALTERNATE WAYS OF ENTERING WAYPOINT INFO FOR WAYPOINTS NOT CONTAINED IN THE DATABASE ARE NORMALLY LAT/LON; PLACE BEARING/PLACE BEARING; OR PLACE BEARING/DISTANCE. THE LATER WAS USED IN THIS EVENT. 3) CTLR ASSUMING THAT CLRNC COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED IMMEDIATELY. CTLRS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT ALTHOUGH ACFT MAY BE FILED INDICATING FMC OR GPS CAPABILITY (IE: /E; /F; /G); IT MAY TAKE THE CREW TIME TO ENTER A WAYPOINT IF IT IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE FMC DATABASE. SUMMARY: ALTHOUGH THE CTLR INDICATED THAT WE WERE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE ATC CLRNC; I TOTALLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT FEEL THAT ANY FAR WAS VIOLATED DURING THE ABOVE EVENT. I HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR OVER THIRTY YRS AND HAVE NEVER HAD A CTLR IMPLY NON COMPLIANCE DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME REQUIRED TO ENTER A WAYPOINT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED HE IS QUALIFIED ON MULTIPLE EQUIP TYPES OPERATED BY HIS EMPLOYER. SOME OF THE MORE RECENT EQUIP UTILIZES LATER FMCS IN WHICH GREATER MEMORY ALLOWS COMPLETE AIRWAYS DEFINITIONS. EARLIER ACFT; AS IN THIS CASE; HAVE MORE LIMITED DATA IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. THE NEED TO MANUALLY ENTER WAYPOINTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE IS DISTRACTING AND TIME CONSUMING. THE BRADE ARR STATES IN BOTH THE NARRATIVE AND GRAPHIC DISPLAYS THAT; 'THE USER SHOULD EXPECT 'RADAR VECTORS TO FINAL APCH COURSE.' HE WAS ANTICIPATING VECTORS AND HAD NOT ANTICIPATED THE NEED TO PROGRAM DOCAT. RPTR EMPHASIZED THE DESIRABILITY FOR ATC AND THE PLT IN SUCH AN EVENT TO COMMUNICATE THEIR NEEDS OPENLY; IE ADVISING ATC OF THE PROB AND REQUESTING RADAR VECTORS FOR THE APCH AND FOR SEPARATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.