Narrative:

Preparing to depart IFR; I got WX from airport WX terminal. Was unable to file IFR flight plan using duats (my normal practice) due to a local equipment problem. Called the FSS 800 number to file; but after 3 (perhaps 4) attempts over a 1 hour period; was unable to get through to a live briefer; even after holding 5-10 mins each time. Since the WX was VFR; I decided to depart; maintain VFR and air file. After departure; I discovered that my IFR GPS had failed (unable to enter waypoints) although it had checked out on the ground. After several attempts; I reached FSS by radio and air filed an airways route. Realizing that my normal equipment code of '/G' could not be used; I consulted the limited references I had in the cockpit and decided to use '/right' since the plane was equipped with a VOR/DME based RNAV. I should have used '/1;' but did not realize the mistake at the time. A clearance of 'direct dny sages lhy V106 lvz V29 sby cvv direct' was issued by alb approach a short time later. Being unfamiliar with the area; I spent some time locating the fixes on paper charts; was given radar vectors in the meantime. It became apparent that some of the fixes were beyond the range of the ground based navaids and I had to get additional vectors. At one point; I received an unreliable indication and started to turn off course. ATC noticed and issued a correction. During the course of the flight; my routing was changed at least 5 times and there were several more delays on my part looking up unfamiliar fixes and getting vectors toward out-of-range fixes. I tried to explain to each controller that I was using 'old fashioned RNAV' but did not think to amend the equipment code; so the incorrect '/right' information was being passed to each sector. It did not help that there were widespread IFR conditions and delays and ATC was quite busy. At one point; ZNY amended my clearance to 'after lrp direct ric direct.' when I pointed out that this would take me through the washington; dc ADIZ and frz; his response was 'take it up with the next controller.' the next controller; ZDC; immediately amended my route to direct 'mtn; pxt; ric; direct;' and remarked that I 'should have filed an airway route;' which; of course; I had initially done. The next controller then amended my route to 'direct pxt V16 colin V-33 hcm direct;' which had been part of my original flight plan. The next controller amended the route to 'direct louie V93 pxt V16 colin V33 hcm direct.' again; each controller probably assumed that I could 'dial in' (something one can't do with the old equipment) the ever-changing fixes due to the wrong equipment code. Although I do not believe safety was compromised; it could have been. At the very least; the distrs; misunderstandings and route changing resulted in the very inefficient use of busy airspace and much wasted time for ATC and for me. A trip that should have taken a little over 2 hours took over 3-4 hours; including the multiple route changes and the hour wasted trying to reach FSS by phone. Contributing factors: 1) the extremely poor performance of the new contract FSS. Since I could not reach them by phone; there was no opportunity to provide the normal 30+ mins lead time for ATC to work out my routing. When I did reach an FSS specialist on the radio; he seemed completely unfamiliar with the local area and I had to spell each fix for him. He seemed to have no knowledge whether the route I filed was appropriate or not. 2) my use of an incorrect equipment code (after failure of the GPS) due to time pressure and lack of adequate references in the airplane. 3) my lack of clarity in explaining my equipment limitations to ATC and/or amending the equipment code. 4) apparent lack of familiarity with the dc ADIZ/frz by controllers outside the dc area resulting in an inappropriate clearance. Corrective actions: 1) the performance and responsiveness of the new contract FSS must be improved. In my experience; it is totally unacceptable and much; much worse than the previous FAA operated FSS. 2) the FAA should consider making equipment codes more readily available and easier to understand; including perhaps a listof eligible equipment for each of the many categories of RNAV now available. 3) controllers should be better informed regarding the dc ADIZ/frz. 4) I need to communicate my situation more clearly using the proper codes and terminology.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: M20 PILOT REPORTS DIFFICULTIES FILING IFR VIA TELEPHONE TO FSS AND PROBLEMS AIRBORNE AFTER GPS FAILURE WITH THE WRONG EQUIPMENT CODE.

Narrative: PREPARING TO DEPART IFR; I GOT WX FROM ARPT WX TERMINAL. WAS UNABLE TO FILE IFR FLT PLAN USING DUATS (MY NORMAL PRACTICE) DUE TO A LCL EQUIP PROB. CALLED THE FSS 800 NUMBER TO FILE; BUT AFTER 3 (PERHAPS 4) ATTEMPTS OVER A 1 HR PERIOD; WAS UNABLE TO GET THROUGH TO A LIVE BRIEFER; EVEN AFTER HOLDING 5-10 MINS EACH TIME. SINCE THE WX WAS VFR; I DECIDED TO DEPART; MAINTAIN VFR AND AIR FILE. AFTER DEP; I DISCOVERED THAT MY IFR GPS HAD FAILED (UNABLE TO ENTER WAYPOINTS) ALTHOUGH IT HAD CHKED OUT ON THE GND. AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS; I REACHED FSS BY RADIO AND AIR FILED AN AIRWAYS RTE. REALIZING THAT MY NORMAL EQUIP CODE OF '/G' COULD NOT BE USED; I CONSULTED THE LIMITED REFS I HAD IN THE COCKPIT AND DECIDED TO USE '/R' SINCE THE PLANE WAS EQUIPPED WITH A VOR/DME BASED RNAV. I SHOULD HAVE USED '/1;' BUT DID NOT REALIZE THE MISTAKE AT THE TIME. A CLRNC OF 'DIRECT DNY SAGES LHY V106 LVZ V29 SBY CVV DIRECT' WAS ISSUED BY ALB APCH A SHORT TIME LATER. BEING UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA; I SPENT SOME TIME LOCATING THE FIXES ON PAPER CHARTS; WAS GIVEN RADAR VECTORS IN THE MEANTIME. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT SOME OF THE FIXES WERE BEYOND THE RANGE OF THE GND BASED NAVAIDS AND I HAD TO GET ADDITIONAL VECTORS. AT ONE POINT; I RECEIVED AN UNRELIABLE INDICATION AND STARTED TO TURN OFF COURSE. ATC NOTICED AND ISSUED A CORRECTION. DURING THE COURSE OF THE FLT; MY ROUTING WAS CHANGED AT LEAST 5 TIMES AND THERE WERE SEVERAL MORE DELAYS ON MY PART LOOKING UP UNFAMILIAR FIXES AND GETTING VECTORS TOWARD OUT-OF-RANGE FIXES. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO EACH CTLR THAT I WAS USING 'OLD FASHIONED RNAV' BUT DID NOT THINK TO AMEND THE EQUIP CODE; SO THE INCORRECT '/R' INFO WAS BEING PASSED TO EACH SECTOR. IT DID NOT HELP THAT THERE WERE WIDESPREAD IFR CONDITIONS AND DELAYS AND ATC WAS QUITE BUSY. AT ONE POINT; ZNY AMENDED MY CLRNC TO 'AFTER LRP DIRECT RIC DIRECT.' WHEN I POINTED OUT THAT THIS WOULD TAKE ME THROUGH THE WASHINGTON; DC ADIZ AND FRZ; HIS RESPONSE WAS 'TAKE IT UP WITH THE NEXT CTLR.' THE NEXT CTLR; ZDC; IMMEDIATELY AMENDED MY RTE TO DIRECT 'MTN; PXT; RIC; DIRECT;' AND REMARKED THAT I 'SHOULD HAVE FILED AN AIRWAY RTE;' WHICH; OF COURSE; I HAD INITIALLY DONE. THE NEXT CTLR THEN AMENDED MY RTE TO 'DIRECT PXT V16 COLIN V-33 HCM DIRECT;' WHICH HAD BEEN PART OF MY ORIGINAL FLT PLAN. THE NEXT CTLR AMENDED THE RTE TO 'DIRECT LOUIE V93 PXT V16 COLIN V33 HCM DIRECT.' AGAIN; EACH CTLR PROBABLY ASSUMED THAT I COULD 'DIAL IN' (SOMETHING ONE CAN'T DO WITH THE OLD EQUIP) THE EVER-CHANGING FIXES DUE TO THE WRONG EQUIP CODE. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELIEVE SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED; IT COULD HAVE BEEN. AT THE VERY LEAST; THE DISTRS; MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND RTE CHANGING RESULTED IN THE VERY INEFFICIENT USE OF BUSY AIRSPACE AND MUCH WASTED TIME FOR ATC AND FOR ME. A TRIP THAT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A LITTLE OVER 2 HRS TOOK OVER 3-4 HRS; INCLUDING THE MULTIPLE RTE CHANGES AND THE HR WASTED TRYING TO REACH FSS BY PHONE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) THE EXTREMELY POOR PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW CONTRACT FSS. SINCE I COULD NOT REACH THEM BY PHONE; THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THE NORMAL 30+ MINS LEAD TIME FOR ATC TO WORK OUT MY ROUTING. WHEN I DID REACH AN FSS SPECIALIST ON THE RADIO; HE SEEMED COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE LCL AREA AND I HAD TO SPELL EACH FIX FOR HIM. HE SEEMED TO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE WHETHER THE RTE I FILED WAS APPROPRIATE OR NOT. 2) MY USE OF AN INCORRECT EQUIP CODE (AFTER FAILURE OF THE GPS) DUE TO TIME PRESSURE AND LACK OF ADEQUATE REFS IN THE AIRPLANE. 3) MY LACK OF CLARITY IN EXPLAINING MY EQUIP LIMITATIONS TO ATC AND/OR AMENDING THE EQUIP CODE. 4) APPARENT LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE DC ADIZ/FRZ BY CTLRS OUTSIDE THE DC AREA RESULTING IN AN INAPPROPRIATE CLRNC. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 1) THE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSIVENESS OF THE NEW CONTRACT FSS MUST BE IMPROVED. IN MY EXPERIENCE; IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND MUCH; MUCH WORSE THAN THE PREVIOUS FAA OPERATED FSS. 2) THE FAA SHOULD CONSIDER MAKING EQUIP CODES MORE READILY AVAILABLE AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND; INCLUDING PERHAPS A LISTOF ELIGIBLE EQUIP FOR EACH OF THE MANY CATEGORIES OF RNAV NOW AVAILABLE. 3) CTLRS SHOULD BE BETTER INFORMED REGARDING THE DC ADIZ/FRZ. 4) I NEED TO COMMUNICATE MY SITUATION MORE CLRLY USING THE PROPER CODES AND TERMINOLOGY.

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.