 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A regional jet crew reported mistaking an arrival into rdu printed on their flight release; for a clearance direct to the fix and entered it that way into the FMC. The arrival number was separated from the name on the next line.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 955783 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201106 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZDC.ARTCC |
| State Reference | VA |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | EMB ERJ 145 ER&LR |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Descent |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying First Officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types |
Narrative:
I entered the flight plan in to the FMS as it appeared on the first page of the release. The first officer reviewed it and confirmed it as being correct. After crossing hpw; ATC inquired about arrival procedure. The first officer responded that we are following our flight plan (hpw direct argal direct rdu). At that time ATC informed us that our flight plan is showing that after hpw we should be on Argal5 arrival. Initially we responded that our flight plan is not reflecting that; but after reviewing it for the third time I noticed number '5' all the way to the left and on the new line. The number '5' looked like it was not associated with the line above and specifically that it was associated with the argal.the flight release and especially flight plan portion of it should be printed more carefully and; if it has to extend into the second line; there should be a notation 'continued on next line' or something similar to warn pilots that there is additional content. I believe that any fix or arrival procedure should never be broken apart from its' original spelling; because it may lead pilots to assume that the flight plan is reflecting a fix instead of an arrival procedure.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Regional Jet crew reported mistaking an arrival into RDU printed on their flight release; for a clearance direct to the fix and entered it that way into the FMC. The arrival number was separated from the name on the next line.
Narrative: I entered the flight plan in to the FMS as it appeared on the first page of the release. The first officer reviewed it and confirmed it as being correct. After crossing HPW; ATC inquired about arrival procedure. The First Officer responded that we are following our flight plan (HPW direct ARGAL direct RDU). At that time ATC informed us that our flight plan is showing that after HPW we should be on Argal5 arrival. Initially we responded that our flight plan is not reflecting that; but after reviewing it for the third time I noticed number '5' all the way to the left and on the new line. The number '5' looked like it was not associated with the line above and specifically that it was associated with the ARGAL.The flight release and especially flight plan portion of it should be printed more carefully and; if it has to extend into the second line; there should be a notation 'continued on next line' or something similar to warn pilots that there is additional content. I believe that any fix or arrival procedure should never be broken apart from its' original spelling; because it may lead pilots to assume that the flight plan is reflecting a fix instead of an arrival procedure.
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.