ATC versus company flight plan route disputed.

Attributes
ACN	112929
Time
Date	198905
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : lrp
State Reference	PA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 17000 msl bound upper : 17000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zny
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other cruise other descent other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 142 flight time total : 16000 flight time type : 944
ASRS Report	112929
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

New york ATC gave us vector to intercept V93 south of lancaster. IFR clearance flight plan route (co flight plan X) was lancaster V499 bwi. New york ATC not aware of clearance from roc as flight plan route. I was requested to call TRACON after landing as to what my clearance was. I told them and requested if a violation was to be filed, answer was no. Now I am told that this fix and routing is a target by new york center for violations. What is the problem? Careless and reckless operation by ATC. Should I file a civil suit against ATC? What is going on? Why are we operating in a continuously increasing hostile and degrading environment? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated that he felt the ARTCC radar controller exhibited a certain level of aggression towards the pilot during rerouting. He also stated that this reroute and possible FAA violation was given to another air carrier pilot of the same company. He gave as company route stored in FMS roc/bwi: roc direct gee direct elz direct slt, V-170-V-400 trish, bwi. The conflict seems to be from lrp and using V-93 instead of V-499. (Also appears that this is a route that approach control desires and asks ny center to reroute.)

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC VERSUS COMPANY FLT PLAN ROUTE DISPUTED.

Narrative: NEW YORK ATC GAVE US VECTOR TO INTERCEPT V93 S OF LANCASTER. IFR CLRNC FLT PLAN ROUTE (CO FLT PLAN X) WAS LANCASTER V499 BWI. NEW YORK ATC NOT AWARE OF CLRNC FROM ROC AS FLT PLAN ROUTE. I WAS REQUESTED TO CALL TRACON AFTER LNDG AS TO WHAT MY CLRNC WAS. I TOLD THEM AND REQUESTED IF A VIOLATION WAS TO BE FILED, ANSWER WAS NO. NOW I AM TOLD THAT THIS FIX AND ROUTING IS A TARGET BY NEW YORK CENTER FOR VIOLATIONS. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? CARELESS AND RECKLESS OPERATION BY ATC. SHOULD I FILE A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST ATC? WHAT IS GOING ON? WHY ARE WE OPERATING IN A CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING HOSTILE AND DEGRADING ENVIRONMENT? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATED THAT HE FELT THE ARTCC RADAR CTLR EXHIBITED A CERTAIN LEVEL OF AGGRESSION TOWARDS THE PLT DURING REROUTING. HE ALSO STATED THAT THIS REROUTE AND POSSIBLE FAA VIOLATION WAS GIVEN TO ANOTHER ACR PLT OF THE SAME COMPANY. HE GAVE AS COMPANY ROUTE STORED IN FMS ROC/BWI: ROC DIRECT GEE DIRECT ELZ DIRECT SLT, V-170-V-400 TRISH, BWI. THE CONFLICT SEEMS TO BE FROM LRP AND USING V-93 INSTEAD OF V-499. (ALSO APPEARS THAT THIS IS A ROUTE THAT APCH CTL DESIRES AND ASKS NY CENTER TO REROUTE.)

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.