Narrative:

There are two issues that happened on this flight and they are closely related. We were given a clearance by new york center to proceed direct to skppr. The point was on our flight plan and in the FMS database but we couldn't find it on our enroute chart. We eventually figured out with the assistance of dispatch that the point was in the chart NOTAM in the front of part ii. During the flight we were using latin american high/low chart 5/6 and 7/8. Both pilots had thoroughly reviewed both charts and were actively discussing different features of the chart. When we determined the compulsory reporting points; we both failed to notice that vesra is listed as a non compulsory on the high 5/6 but as a compulsory reporting on the high 7/8. We crossed vesra and failed to accomplish a position report until we noticed the difference in the charts as we approached the point macor and had crossed onto the airspace covered by la 7/8. ZNY did not notify us of missing the position report. At macor we notified ZNY of our mistake and accomplished the vesra position report. I believe both of these events illustrate an area that could be improved. The information and preflight duties that are required by our crews make it very difficult to review all the information that would have allowed us to catch both of these chart issues. It would be a lot more effective if any changes have been made to the flights' planned route that they be listed on the F-4 NOTAM or some other easy to find location. The conflict between the two charts also needs to be corrected. I also think it would be easy and a great back up for crews if the compulsory reporting points would be highlighted on the flight plan in some way to show them as such.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 flight crew laments fix name changes along Airway L455; which which are only to be found in chart NOTAMS. Fix VESRA is not included in the NOTAM's but has been changed to a compulsory reporting point on one High Chart but not on the other which overlaps.

Narrative: There are two issues that happened on this flight and they are closely related. We were given a clearance by New York Center to proceed direct to SKPPR. The point was on our flight plan and in the FMS database but we couldn't find it on our enroute chart. We eventually figured out with the assistance of Dispatch that the point was in the chart NOTAM in the front of Part II. During the flight we were using Latin American High/Low chart 5/6 and 7/8. Both pilots had thoroughly reviewed both charts and were actively discussing different features of the chart. When we determined the compulsory reporting points; we both failed to notice that VESRA is listed as a non compulsory on the high 5/6 but as a compulsory reporting on the high 7/8. We crossed VESRA and failed to accomplish a position report until we noticed the difference in the charts as we approached the point MACOR and had crossed onto the airspace covered by LA 7/8. ZNY did not notify us of missing the position report. At MACOR we notified ZNY of our mistake and accomplished the VESRA position report. I believe both of these events illustrate an area that could be improved. The information and preflight duties that are required by our crews make it very difficult to review all the information that would have allowed us to catch both of these chart issues. It would be a lot more effective if any changes have been made to the flights' planned route that they be listed on the F-4 NOTAM or some other easy to find location. The conflict between the two charts also needs to be corrected. I also think it would be easy and a great back up for crews if the compulsory reporting points would be highlighted on the flight plan in some way to show them as such.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.