Narrative:

Our original clearance from ATC was, 'pwm syr J547 buf J547 HL547 J547 pmm V84 pappi ord.' there were considerable thunderstorms in the northeast part of the country, and we had to do a lot of off arwys vectoring and deviations to avoid the storms. We were cleared well north of syr and buf, and were receiving vectors from toronto center when we finally cleared most of the problem WX. We were well north of HL547 in canadian airspace, and over 100 NM northeast of the eck VORTAC when the center controller cleared us 'direct peck, on course.' the captain was flying and we both set our mhdi's and proceeded directly toward eck. As we neared peck we were switched to and established contact with ZOB. We were level at our assigned altitude of FL350. Upon reaching peck, I looked at my arwys chart, hi (us) 7, and mentioned out loud to the captain that our next station on the arwy was 114.3, and that the inbound radial (48 NM away) was 252 degrees. I observed him setting the course selector and tuning his radio. He changed heading and we appeared to be proceeding properly from eck. After a minute or so, both the captain and I noticed the course deviation indicator was pegged off to the left of the instrument. The captain began a gentle left turn to correct. It seemed incredible to both of us that we could be that far off the arwy. As we were xchking to find out what was wrong, the ZOB controller called us and said that we had possible conflicting traffic at our altitude and to make an immediate right turn to 320 degrees. We complied immediately. There was some further discussion with the controller about our clearance and a reference was made to our being off our correct arwy by about 40 degrees. Upon closer inspection of the hi (us) 7 chart, I discovered that I had read the proper arwy and inbound heading/course to the next VORTAC station after eck (which in fact was fnt), but that I had erroneously interpreted that station to be svm VORTAC and its associated frequency of 114.3. The rectangular box which describes the svm VORTAC is located immediately below the solid arwys triangle, which is that belonging to fnt VORTAC. The rectangular descriptive box for fnt is considerably further away and above the triangle. In fact, north of 2 other arwys on the chart. Again, this is looking at our current hi (us) 7 chart, of 6/24/88. In comparison, the depiction of these stations on the hi (us) 4 chart is much clearer and easier to read. I am sure that, had I been using that chart instead of the hi (us) 7 chart, there would have been no confusion to me or the captain. As an added note, I feel that our arwys charts have other similar traps due to chart clutter, and that even though there is a thin line arrow from each rectangular descriptive box to the respective arwys triangle of each VORTAC station, there are several areas of potential confusion which could and should be eliminated. The fact that 2 very experienced professional airline pilots who use these charts every day could be confused enough to make such an error (and in relatively good flying conditions [daylight, VFR) should be an indication that something is in need of correction. I have never had a violation or accident in over 25 yrs flying. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: this reporter called analyst re: another report he had sent. After discussing that report, he mentioned this one and we discussed this one too. The main thrust of the conversation was that the problem was caused primarily by the charting of the station frequency blocks on chart hi 7 & 8.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT STRAYED FROM COURSE.

Narrative: OUR ORIGINAL CLRNC FROM ATC WAS, 'PWM SYR J547 BUF J547 HL547 J547 PMM V84 PAPPI ORD.' THERE WERE CONSIDERABLE TSTMS IN THE NE PART OF THE COUNTRY, AND WE HAD TO DO A LOT OF OFF ARWYS VECTORING AND DEVIATIONS TO AVOID THE STORMS. WE WERE CLRED WELL N OF SYR AND BUF, AND WERE RECEIVING VECTORS FROM TORONTO CENTER WHEN WE FINALLY CLRED MOST OF THE PROB WX. WE WERE WELL NORTH OF HL547 IN CANADIAN AIRSPACE, AND OVER 100 NM NE OF THE ECK VORTAC WHEN THE CENTER CTLR CLRED US 'DIRECT PECK, ON COURSE.' THE CAPT WAS FLYING AND WE BOTH SET OUR MHDI'S AND PROCEEDED DIRECTLY TOWARD ECK. AS WE NEARED PECK WE WERE SWITCHED TO AND ESTABLISHED CONTACT WITH ZOB. WE WERE LEVEL AT OUR ASSIGNED ALT OF FL350. UPON REACHING PECK, I LOOKED AT MY ARWYS CHART, HI (US) 7, AND MENTIONED OUT LOUD TO THE CAPT THAT OUR NEXT STATION ON THE ARWY WAS 114.3, AND THAT THE INBND RADIAL (48 NM AWAY) WAS 252 DEGS. I OBSERVED HIM SETTING THE COURSE SELECTOR AND TUNING HIS RADIO. HE CHANGED HDG AND WE APPEARED TO BE PROCEEDING PROPERLY FROM ECK. AFTER A MINUTE OR SO, BOTH THE CAPT AND I NOTICED THE COURSE DEVIATION INDICATOR WAS PEGGED OFF TO THE LEFT OF THE INSTRUMENT. THE CAPT BEGAN A GENTLE LEFT TURN TO CORRECT. IT SEEMED INCREDIBLE TO BOTH OF US THAT WE COULD BE THAT FAR OFF THE ARWY. AS WE WERE XCHKING TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS WRONG, THE ZOB CTLR CALLED US AND SAID THAT WE HAD POSSIBLE CONFLICTING TFC AT OUR ALT AND TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT TURN TO 320 DEGS. WE COMPLIED IMMEDIATELY. THERE WAS SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE CTLR ABOUT OUR CLRNC AND A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO OUR BEING OFF OUR CORRECT ARWY BY ABOUT 40 DEGS. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION OF THE HI (US) 7 CHART, I DISCOVERED THAT I HAD READ THE PROPER ARWY AND INBND HDG/COURSE TO THE NEXT VORTAC STATION AFTER ECK (WHICH IN FACT WAS FNT), BUT THAT I HAD ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED THAT STATION TO BE SVM VORTAC AND ITS ASSOCIATED FREQ OF 114.3. THE RECTANGULAR BOX WHICH DESCRIBES THE SVM VORTAC IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE SOLID ARWYS TRIANGLE, WHICH IS THAT BELONGING TO FNT VORTAC. THE RECTANGULAR DESCRIPTIVE BOX FOR FNT IS CONSIDERABLY FURTHER AWAY AND ABOVE THE TRIANGLE. IN FACT, N OF 2 OTHER ARWYS ON THE CHART. AGAIN, THIS IS LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT HI (US) 7 CHART, OF 6/24/88. IN COMPARISON, THE DEPICTION OF THESE STATIONS ON THE HI (US) 4 CHART IS MUCH CLEARER AND EASIER TO READ. I AM SURE THAT, HAD I BEEN USING THAT CHART INSTEAD OF THE HI (US) 7 CHART, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CONFUSION TO ME OR THE CAPT. AS AN ADDED NOTE, I FEEL THAT OUR ARWYS CHARTS HAVE OTHER SIMILAR TRAPS DUE TO CHART CLUTTER, AND THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A THIN LINE ARROW FROM EACH RECTANGULAR DESCRIPTIVE BOX TO THE RESPECTIVE ARWYS TRIANGLE OF EACH VORTAC STATION, THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFUSION WHICH COULD AND SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. THE FACT THAT 2 VERY EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL AIRLINE PLTS WHO USE THESE CHARTS EVERY DAY COULD BE CONFUSED ENOUGH TO MAKE SUCH AN ERROR (AND IN RELATIVELY GOOD FLYING CONDITIONS [DAYLIGHT, VFR) SHOULD BE AN INDICATION THAT SOMETHING IS IN NEED OF CORRECTION. I HAVE NEVER HAD A VIOLATION OR ACCIDENT IN OVER 25 YRS FLYING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THIS RPTR CALLED ANALYST RE: ANOTHER RPT HE HAD SENT. AFTER DISCUSSING THAT RPT, HE MENTIONED THIS ONE AND WE DISCUSSED THIS ONE TOO. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT THE PROB WAS CAUSED PRIMARILY BY THE CHARTING OF THE STATION FREQ BLOCKS ON CHART HI 7 & 8.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.