TEC Route problem

[letsgofly]

I was looking to fly KSBP-KRAL. I looked up a TEC route on http://myflightroute.com/index.php?, which produced the choices below. I copied and pasted the top route RZS PDZ and placed SBAN51 into the remarks and submitted. When I picked up my clearance, I was given "...runway heading, radar vectors RZS, then as filed…" So off I go.

So what's the problem? I cross RZS and head to PDZ, as I originally filed; not long thereafter I was scolded for being off course. Puzzled, I checked the PE Aware listing for my flight and find the route got changed to RZS V186 PDZ. You can see it here: http://peaware.pilotedge.net/flight.cfm?id=63626, and how I went off course…except that it wasn't the course I filed!!

Not that it matters now, but I have no idea how RZS PDZ morphed into RZS V186 PDZ. That is an issue for the site developers.

The lesson for the lowly pilot is this: Get a full route clearance next time, and NOT a "blah blah, then as filed." That way, any issues with the route are known before you leave the ground.

Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 1723.jpg (64.48 KiB) Viewed 3892 times

[Peter Grey]

Hello,

I just want to clarify 1 thing here.

The SBAN51 TEC is defined as RZS V186 PDZ. I don't know why the website you quoted gave you the route without V186. The reason that peaware showed the V186 is that our controllers "convert" TEC route codes into full routes (so that we can read them, we don't know SBAN51 either) using an internal database which is populated from the FAA database (available from http://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/d_prefroutes.jsp).

Or in other words that third party website was incorrect when it said SBAN51 = RZS PDZ.

However, the controller still shouldn't have said "as filed" as you didn't file V186. I think what happened here is the controller updated your route to the correct one (which would add the V186), saw your remark, saw that it was the correct route code and assumed you had filed it correctly. I'll address it with our controllers. Thanks for letting us know.

[wmburns]

I sent a follow up email to the MyFlightRoute site admin at Admin@MyFlightRoute.com letting him know about about the possible TEC route data base error. I received a prompt reply stating out of town with limited Internet access but will look at it as soon as able.

The guy that runs this web site is very responsive to updates and corrections. Very stand up guy. Two thumbs up.

Here's another clue that something was wrong with the route. Skyvector indicates that the distance from RZS to PDZ is 117 nm which is a very long way between VOR's in such dense airspace. The direct route does not line up with any Victor airways.

Check out the difference once V186 is added.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.12090014407 ... :A.K2.KRAL

Also look at the altitude. A flight direct from RZS to PDZ would have problems being flown at 7,000 feet. Looking at the low enroute charts I see area altitudes listed as 11,100, 10,400. On the VFR chart, the route passes through an area with a min altitude of 7,500 feet.

[kullery]

My sincere apologies for the data error that appeared for SBAN51. Thanks to EAA providing wifi access here at KOSH, I was able to correct the route. After Airventure wraps up, I will review all of the routes and go through my notes to determine how this error occurred. Unfortunately route updates are a manual process but I try to make sure that they are double checked with every 56 day cycle update.

Coincidently, Keith and I just spoke yesterday about communicating any future route changes to ensure that both of our databases are in synch with current A/FD cycle.

Thanks for your kind words.

Ken

[letsgofly]

Thank you all, for the prompt responses.

@kullery: Hope you're enjoying Oshkosh! I've been to many Sun N Funs, but never the grandaddy of them all. I did not realize you have to manually extract route updates; that must be very time intensive indeed. Thanks - you have a great tool there and I won't hesitate to use it again; reading AFDs is painful and I would much rather use your site.

@wmburns: Thanks also. I suppose I should have also got a clue from those mountains that were somewhat in proximity to my left!

@Peter Grey: As you indicated, it's not reasonable to assume controllers have TECs memorized. Do you happen to know which controller updated the route? If it was subsequent to the ground controller, then I suppose a full route clearance/readback wouldn't have prevented this, anyway. Thanks for your assistance.

[Peter Grey]

As you indicated, it's not reasonable to assume controllers have TECs memorized. Do you happen to know which controller updated the route? If it was subsequent to the ground controller, then I suppose a full route clearance/readback wouldn't have prevented this, anyway. Thanks for your assistance.

It would have been the ground controller so the full readback would have caught it. I plan to chat with the controller involved soon so I'll hopefully have more details after that discussion.

[Peter Grey]

I finally got the opportunity to talk to the controller involved.

The simple answer as to what happened is that the ground controller saw your remark SBAN51 and misread it as the route part of your flight plan (this can happen with a quick glance at your flight plan). He then did the "convert" command to convert it to a readable route. This had the affect of overwriting your actual filed route "RZS PDZ" with the correct SBAN51 route "RZS V186 PDZ".

The controller then cleared you as filed as he thought you filed SBAN51 (as opposed to the RZS PDZ route you actually filed).

Once again the controller shouldn't have cleared you as filed, and that website should have had the V186 in there so plenty of fault to go around. Regardless of that we apologize for the mistake.

[letsgofly]

Thanks Peter.