C560 FLT CREW MISPROGRAMS IAP IN FMS. TRACK DEV RESULTS.

Narrative

OUR ACFT WAS CLRED TO THE DEST ARPT (RDU) VIA AN ASSIGNED ARR (BUZZY 6). BEFORE REACHING THE LAST FIX/INTXN (BUZZY) PRIOR TO THE CLRNC LIMIT (RDU) ON THE ASSIGNED ARR; THE PLTS WERE TOLD TO EXPECT THE VISUAL APCH TO A SPECIFIC RWY (RWY 23L); FOR WHICH THE ILS WAS NOTAMED OTS. THE PLT ENTERED THE DATA FOR THE GPS APCH TO THE ASSIGNED RWY INTO THE ACFT'S FMS. THE PLT MADE THE ERROR OF ENTERING THE DATA INTO THE FMS IN A POS PRIOR TO THE CLRNC LIMIT FOR THE ARR PROC WHICH; UPON ACTIVATION; MADE THE GPS APCH PROC ACTIVATE PRIOR TO REACHING THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT. THE DIFFERENCE IN FLYING TO THE IAF INSTEAD OF THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT (THE DEST ARPT) CAUSED A COURSE DEV OF APPROX 10 DEGS (TO GO FROM BUZZY TO THE IAF INSTEAD OF GOING FROM BUZZY TO THE ARPT); WHICH WOULD HAVE CAUSED OUR ACFT TO BYPASS THE CLRNC LIMIT (THE DEST ARPT) BY APPROX 5-7 MI IF IT HAD BEEN FLOWN ENTIRELY WITHOUT CORRECTION. THE FMS/EFIS PERFORMED CORRECTLY; AND BOTH PLTS FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE CORRECT TURN HAD BEEN MISSED IN ORDER TO PROCEED ON THE ASSIGNED ROUTING TO THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT. INSTEAD; OUR ACFT PROCEEDED TO THE GPS COORDINATE/IAF THAT HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO THE ERRONEOUS LOCATION IN THE FMS. THE APCH CTLR CHALLENGED THE ACFT BY ASKING IF IT WAS FLYING AN ASSIGNED HDG OR IF IT WAS ON THE ASSIGNED PROC. THE PLT (IMMEDIATELY REALIZING THE INPUT ERROR) REPLIED BY STATING THAT IT WAS ON THE PROC; AND WAS TURNING PRESENTLY; AND COMMENCED A TURN TOWARD THE ASSIGNED CLRNC LIMIT/ARPT. THE CTLR REPLIED BY ASSIGNING A HDG FOR THE VISUAL APCH (TO THE SAME RWY PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED); AND IDENTED LCL TFC FOR OUR ACFT (NONE OF WHICH POSED ANY CONFLICTS). THE BAL OF THE FLT PROCEEDED WITHOUT ANY OTHER ERRORS OR ISSUES.