Narrative:

While en route to ewr; we noticed that the WX had gone down to low IFR. We decided to brief a CAT 3 approach to runway 4R. I remembered that there was an alternate missed approach procedure in the fdc NOTAMS for that runway in our flight briefing packet. This missed approach procedure was radically different than the one shown on our commercial chart. As I reviewed this procedure with my first officer; I started to get a bad feeling about the validity of this NOTAM. We decided to call flight control to get their input. To make a long story short; flight control told us that the fdc NOTAM in question was not valid! This could have led us to fly a completely wrong missed approach procedure that was totally different than the one that was charted. The charted and correct procedure has a missed approach altitude of 2500 ft; while the erroneous NOTAM procedure would have had us going to 3000 ft. After I got to the hotel; I once again called flight control and spoke with my dispatcher. He xferred me to the commercial chart specialist. He said he would look into the situation and get back to me. After I woke up; I followed up with another call to the specialist. He told me that indeed the NOTAM in question was not valid. He had spoken with the folks at the chart company and was apparently not given a satisfactory explanation for this gross error. I began to do my own research on the current valid fdc NOTAMS for ewr and found only 2 in the national database per the briefing website. They are fdc X and fdc Y. I had saved the briefing package from our flight and found many other erroneous NOTAMS; including the fdc NOTAM; which showed an alternate missed approach procedure for runway 22L. Under the approach procedure block of the NOTAMS; there is also an item that shows an alternate missed approach procedure for runway 22L that differs from the charted procedure. I was unable to find this alternate procedure in the current NOTAM D or fdc data either. I don't know how this is happening; but I do feel that we may be placing too much faith in the company X system. I propose that until long term; systemic corrections can be made to this system of disseminating NOTAMS; that an immediate and extensive audit be made by flight operations and flight control to do a comparative analysis of our current NOTAM database and the actual NOTAM database to assure the integrity of the information being supplied to our flight crews. The ramifications of a crew flying a wrong missed approach procedure to wrong altitude in one of the most complex ATC environments in the world cannot be overemphasized.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A300 CAPTAIN DETERMINES THAT EWR NOTAMS PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY CONTRACTED CHART PROVIDER WERE OUT OF DATE AND INCLUDED AN ALTERNATE MISSED APCH PROC FOR RWY 4R THAT WAS NO LONGER APPLICABLE.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE TO EWR; WE NOTICED THAT THE WX HAD GONE DOWN TO LOW IFR. WE DECIDED TO BRIEF A CAT 3 APCH TO RWY 4R. I REMEMBERED THAT THERE WAS AN ALTERNATE MISSED APCH PROC IN THE FDC NOTAMS FOR THAT RWY IN OUR FLT BRIEFING PACKET. THIS MISSED APCH PROC WAS RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE SHOWN ON OUR COMMERCIAL CHART. AS I REVIEWED THIS PROC WITH MY FO; I STARTED TO GET A BAD FEELING ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THIS NOTAM. WE DECIDED TO CALL FLT CTL TO GET THEIR INPUT. TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT; FLT CTL TOLD US THAT THE FDC NOTAM IN QUESTION WAS NOT VALID! THIS COULD HAVE LED US TO FLY A COMPLETELY WRONG MISSED APCH PROC THAT WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT WAS CHARTED. THE CHARTED AND CORRECT PROC HAS A MISSED APCH ALT OF 2500 FT; WHILE THE ERRONEOUS NOTAM PROC WOULD HAVE HAD US GOING TO 3000 FT. AFTER I GOT TO THE HOTEL; I ONCE AGAIN CALLED FLT CTL AND SPOKE WITH MY DISPATCHER. HE XFERRED ME TO THE COMMERCIAL CHART SPECIALIST. HE SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO THE SITUATION AND GET BACK TO ME. AFTER I WOKE UP; I FOLLOWED UP WITH ANOTHER CALL TO THE SPECIALIST. HE TOLD ME THAT INDEED THE NOTAM IN QUESTION WAS NOT VALID. HE HAD SPOKEN WITH THE FOLKS AT THE CHART COMPANY AND WAS APPARENTLY NOT GIVEN A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THIS GROSS ERROR. I BEGAN TO DO MY OWN RESEARCH ON THE CURRENT VALID FDC NOTAMS FOR EWR AND FOUND ONLY 2 IN THE NATL DATABASE PER THE BRIEFING WEBSITE. THEY ARE FDC X AND FDC Y. I HAD SAVED THE BRIEFING PACKAGE FROM OUR FLT AND FOUND MANY OTHER ERRONEOUS NOTAMS; INCLUDING THE FDC NOTAM; WHICH SHOWED AN ALTERNATE MISSED APCH PROC FOR RWY 22L. UNDER THE APCH PROC BLOCK OF THE NOTAMS; THERE IS ALSO AN ITEM THAT SHOWS AN ALTERNATE MISSED APCH PROC FOR RWY 22L THAT DIFFERS FROM THE CHARTED PROC. I WAS UNABLE TO FIND THIS ALTERNATE PROC IN THE CURRENT NOTAM D OR FDC DATA EITHER. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS HAPPENING; BUT I DO FEEL THAT WE MAY BE PLACING TOO MUCH FAITH IN THE COMPANY X SYS. I PROPOSE THAT UNTIL LONG TERM; SYSTEMIC CORRECTIONS CAN BE MADE TO THIS SYS OF DISSEMINATING NOTAMS; THAT AN IMMEDIATE AND EXTENSIVE AUDIT BE MADE BY FLT OPS AND FLT CTL TO DO A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF OUR CURRENT NOTAM DATABASE AND THE ACTUAL NOTAM DATABASE TO ASSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE INFO BEING SUPPLIED TO OUR FLT CREWS. THE RAMIFICATIONS OF A CREW FLYING A WRONG MISSED APCH PROC TO WRONG ALT IN ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX ATC ENVIRONMENTS IN THE WORLD CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED.

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.