Narrative:

We had an out of date navigation databse. We spent approximately an hour on the ground working with dispatch and clearance to get a non RNAV departure we could accept. The controller working clearance that day was not very helpful in clarifying our route nor was she willing to suggest alternate routings for us. We finally found routing for non RNAV departures from lga in the enroute section of the airway manual under IFR preferred routes. The route listed in the manual was newel.J60.dannr.rav.J64.ewc. We passed this information along to dispatch and they re-filed us for a route that was similar to this but not exact. We received a clearance from ATC that was also similar to this preferred route but not exact. I do remember newel.J60.dannr being the same though and that was where we encountered the problem; I believe. We looked at our charts to determine if we could accept this new route. We had received a new revision with the updated charts effective oct. 20th. High altitude enroute charts 5-8 were updated in this revision; but high altitude enroute charts 3 and 4 were not. The new york area 10-1 chart also was not updated with the new fixes in this revision. The only chart we could find newell on was high altitude enroute chart 8. The issue was with trying to determine how to get from newell to dannr on J60 according to our clearance. The chart around newell is very cluttered and the best we could tell J60 went from newell direct etx direct dannr. Again; the 10-1 new york area chart where we would have been able to take a closer look has not been updated with the new fixes yet. I can't remember if we tried to clarify this specific problem with the controller working clearance in lga or not; but I do remember that she always acted annoyed when we tried to clarify the route and we tried several times to clarify the route with her. We decided to depart having received to our knowledge a non-RNAV departure clearance and routing that we could verify using ground based navigation. On climb out a departure controller asked us if we were navigating to a different fix; and we responded that we were navigating to etx. After this; the controller cleared us direct to a different VOR further along our flight plan and we continued the flight. Updating the FMS databases on time could have prevented this event. A controller more willing to assist and clarify routing questions could have helped prevent this event. An updated 10-1 new york area chart could have helped us better determine how to execute this routing. If high altitude enroute chart 4 had been updated it may also have helped up better determine how to execute this routing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB175 flight crew reports attempting to depart LGA on the first day new RNAV departures/fixes were effective with an out of date FMS nav data base. ATC is not helpful and a track deviation occurs during climb.

Narrative: We had an out of date navigation databse. We spent approximately an hour on the ground working with Dispatch and Clearance to get a non RNAV departure we could accept. The Controller working clearance that day was not very helpful in clarifying our route nor was she willing to suggest alternate routings for us. We finally found routing for non RNAV departures from LGA in the enroute section of the Airway Manual under IFR Preferred Routes. The route listed in the manual was NEWEL.J60.DANNR.RAV.J64.EWC. We passed this information along to Dispatch and they re-filed us for a route that was similar to this but not exact. We received a clearance from ATC that was also similar to this preferred route but not exact. I do remember NEWEL.J60.DANNR being the same though and that was where we encountered the problem; I believe. We looked at our charts to determine if we could accept this new route. We had received a new revision with the updated charts effective Oct. 20th. High altitude enroute charts 5-8 were updated in this revision; but High altitude enroute charts 3 and 4 were not. The New York area 10-1 chart also was not updated with the new fixes in this revision. The only chart we could find NEWELL on was High Altitude Enroute Chart 8. The issue was with trying to determine how to get from NEWELL to DANNR on J60 according to our clearance. The chart around NEWELL is very cluttered and the best we could tell J60 went from NEWELL direct ETX direct DANNR. Again; the 10-1 New York area chart where we would have been able to take a closer look has not been updated with the new fixes yet. I can't remember if we tried to clarify this specific problem with the Controller working clearance in LGA or not; but I do remember that she always acted annoyed when we tried to clarify the route and we tried several times to clarify the route with her. We decided to depart having received to our knowledge a non-RNAV departure clearance and routing that we could verify using ground based navigation. On climb out a Departure Controller asked us if we were navigating to a different fix; and we responded that we were navigating to ETX. After this; the Controller cleared us direct to a different VOR further along our flight plan and we continued the flight. Updating the FMS databases on time could have prevented this event. A Controller more willing to assist and clarify routing questions could have helped prevent this event. An updated 10-1 New York area chart could have helped us better determine how to execute this routing. If High Altitude Enroute Chart 4 had been updated it may also have helped up better determine how to execute this routing.

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.