 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier did not receive amended clearance route change and flew into potential conflict by being on airway other than expected by ZNY controller. Operational deviation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 93566 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198808 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : etx |
| State Reference | PA |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 31000 msl bound upper : 31000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zny tower : lga tower : ewr |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Navigation In Use | Other |
| Flight Phase | cruise other |
| Route In Use | enroute airway : j80 enroute airway : j60 |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 1600 |
| ASRS Report | 93566 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : radar |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance other |
| Consequence | Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 36000 vertical : 0 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Operational Deviation |
Narrative:
Our flight plan was to proceed via J60 after passing etx VOR. Shortly after passing etx, we were given a left turn of some 60 degrees, with a certain amount of urgency in the controller's voice. He informed us that we were proceeding on the wrong route, and that we should have taken J80 after passing etx. We informed him that our clearance was for J60. We were reclred at that time to intercept J80 and proceed. After arriving at my destination, I called the ZNY flow controller, who advised that an amendment had been issued for my clearance before departure, but that the controller who entered it into the computer for some reason changed the departure station from ewr to lga. When the lga clearance delivery controller got the clearance, he naturally could not find our flight, so he trashed the clearance amendment. Of course the ewr controller never got the clearance, so he did not even know that it had been issued. The center controller knew that the clearance had been sent out, and just assumed that we had received it. Needless to say, this was a formula for disaster. A procedure must be developed so that when a controller receives a clearance amendment for which he has no flight, he must check further to see to whom that clearance belongs, so that it can be issued to the proper flight.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR DID NOT RECEIVE AMENDED CLRNC ROUTE CHANGE AND FLEW INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICT BY BEING ON AIRWAY OTHER THAN EXPECTED BY ZNY CTLR. OPERATIONAL DEVIATION.
Narrative: OUR FLT PLAN WAS TO PROCEED VIA J60 AFTER PASSING ETX VOR. SHORTLY AFTER PASSING ETX, WE WERE GIVEN A LEFT TURN OF SOME 60 DEGS, WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF URGENCY IN THE CTLR'S VOICE. HE INFORMED US THAT WE WERE PROCEEDING ON THE WRONG ROUTE, AND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN J80 AFTER PASSING ETX. WE INFORMED HIM THAT OUR CLRNC WAS FOR J60. WE WERE RECLRED AT THAT TIME TO INTERCEPT J80 AND PROCEED. AFTER ARRIVING AT MY DEST, I CALLED THE ZNY FLOW CTLR, WHO ADVISED THAT AN AMENDMENT HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR MY CLRNC BEFORE DEP, BUT THAT THE CTLR WHO ENTERED IT INTO THE COMPUTER FOR SOME REASON CHANGED THE DEP STATION FROM EWR TO LGA. WHEN THE LGA CLRNC DELIVERY CTLR GOT THE CLRNC, HE NATURALLY COULD NOT FIND OUR FLT, SO HE TRASHED THE CLRNC AMENDMENT. OF COURSE THE EWR CTLR NEVER GOT THE CLRNC, SO HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT IT HAD BEEN ISSUED. THE CENTER CTLR KNEW THAT THE CLRNC HAD BEEN SENT OUT, AND JUST ASSUMED THAT WE HAD RECEIVED IT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS WAS A FORMULA FOR DISASTER. A PROC MUST BE DEVELOPED SO THAT WHEN A CTLR RECEIVES A CLRNC AMENDMENT FOR WHICH HE HAS NO FLT, HE MUST CHK FURTHER TO SEE TO WHOM THAT CLRNC BELONGS, SO THAT IT CAN BE ISSUED TO THE PROPER FLT.
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.