Narrative:

I was receiving a briefing to take over the R37 position. While the briefing was taking place; aircraft X checked in and the r-side informed the aircraft that he understood that the pilot could not accept either the RIIVR1 or CIVET5 arrs. The pilot confirmed this. The controller then cleared the aircraft to civet lax and the pilot informed him that he did not have any of those points in his database. The pilot was then issued a heading to intercept the lax 069 degree radial inbound. I informed my supervisor of this and asked how an air carrier could be flying aircraft with database problems. My supervisor then began to check into the problem when she was interrupted by another supervisor. This other supervisor said it was a known problem and would be fixed in a week. I asked this supervisor what I should issue the pilot; and he said the civet arrival. I informed him that the aircraft did have the civet arrival on board and he said to clear the aircraft to civet lax. I then told him that the aircraft didn't have civet intersection in its database and again asked him what he wanted me to issue the aircraft. He then said pdz VORTAC lax. This routing would take the aircraft south of the lax locs to pdz and then a turn back to the north to lax. When I took over the sector; I issued the aircraft hec pdz to intercept the lax 25L localizer; which is actually a correct routing. This is a very common problem for the FAA. Only 1 supervisor knows what the problem is and the fact that it has been addressed. I checked the pre-duty briefing boards and there was nothing concerning this air carrier problem in them and; therefore; no way for controllers to be made aware of the problem. In fact; the problem that had been occurring and the supervisor tried to address is the fact that some air carrier B767's do not have the riivr arrival; but they do have the civet. We have been issuing civet arrival in the cases where these aircraft do not have the riivr and coordinating with approach control. In this case the database problem was different and needed to be addressed; but instead of listening to what the problem was; the supervisor assumed it was the same riivr issue we had been addressing for weeks. Additionally; this problem should have been a briefing item so that all controllers would know about the issue and how management wanted it handled.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZLA CTLR VOICED CONCERN REGARDING NAV LIMITATIONS ON SOME ACFT TYPES THAT PRECLUDE THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN ARR PROCS.

Narrative: I WAS RECEIVING A BRIEFING TO TAKE OVER THE R37 POS. WHILE THE BRIEFING WAS TAKING PLACE; ACFT X CHKED IN AND THE R-SIDE INFORMED THE ACFT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PLT COULD NOT ACCEPT EITHER THE RIIVR1 OR CIVET5 ARRS. THE PLT CONFIRMED THIS. THE CTLR THEN CLRED THE ACFT TO CIVET LAX AND THE PLT INFORMED HIM THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE POINTS IN HIS DATABASE. THE PLT WAS THEN ISSUED A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE LAX 069 DEG RADIAL INBOUND. I INFORMED MY SUPVR OF THIS AND ASKED HOW AN ACR COULD BE FLYING ACFT WITH DATABASE PROBS. MY SUPVR THEN BEGAN TO CHK INTO THE PROB WHEN SHE WAS INTERRUPTED BY ANOTHER SUPVR. THIS OTHER SUPVR SAID IT WAS A KNOWN PROB AND WOULD BE FIXED IN A WK. I ASKED THIS SUPVR WHAT I SHOULD ISSUE THE PLT; AND HE SAID THE CIVET ARR. I INFORMED HIM THAT THE ACFT DID HAVE THE CIVET ARR ON BOARD AND HE SAID TO CLR THE ACFT TO CIVET LAX. I THEN TOLD HIM THAT THE ACFT DIDN'T HAVE CIVET INTXN IN ITS DATABASE AND AGAIN ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTED ME TO ISSUE THE ACFT. HE THEN SAID PDZ VORTAC LAX. THIS ROUTING WOULD TAKE THE ACFT S OF THE LAX LOCS TO PDZ AND THEN A TURN BACK TO THE N TO LAX. WHEN I TOOK OVER THE SECTOR; I ISSUED THE ACFT HEC PDZ TO INTERCEPT THE LAX 25L LOC; WHICH IS ACTUALLY A CORRECT ROUTING. THIS IS A VERY COMMON PROB FOR THE FAA. ONLY 1 SUPVR KNOWS WHAT THE PROB IS AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. I CHKED THE PRE-DUTY BRIEFING BOARDS AND THERE WAS NOTHING CONCERNING THIS ACR PROB IN THEM AND; THEREFORE; NO WAY FOR CTLRS TO BE MADE AWARE OF THE PROB. IN FACT; THE PROB THAT HAD BEEN OCCURRING AND THE SUPVR TRIED TO ADDRESS IS THE FACT THAT SOME ACR B767'S DO NOT HAVE THE RIIVR ARR; BUT THEY DO HAVE THE CIVET. WE HAVE BEEN ISSUING CIVET ARR IN THE CASES WHERE THESE ACFT DO NOT HAVE THE RIIVR AND COORDINATING WITH APCH CTL. IN THIS CASE THE DATABASE PROB WAS DIFFERENT AND NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED; BUT INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO WHAT THE PROB WAS; THE SUPVR ASSUMED IT WAS THE SAME RIIVR ISSUE WE HAD BEEN ADDRESSING FOR WKS. ADDITIONALLY; THIS PROB SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BRIEFING ITEM SO THAT ALL CTLRS WOULD KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUE AND HOW MGMNT WANTED IT HANDLED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.