Narrative:

I requested clearance from ATC while on the ground in opf. The clearance was 'cleared to tapa via the miami 2 departure; beech; baama (this is how the waypoint was pronounced by ATC and how it was read back); zqa; then as filed.' the waypoint baama was spoken as a word; not spelled out letter by letter. Opf clearance delivery confirmed that the clearance was read back correctly. This clearance was a partial re-route as the waypoints beech; baama; and zqa were not included in the original flight plan (the original flight plan was: 'kopf dct skips BR53V rajay A555 coy G633 gabar UG633…'). While airborne we received a radio call from ATC requesting that I confirm our flight plan route. ATC asked what I showed as my next waypoint after beech. I confirmed with ATC that our next fix is baama (we were positively navigating to baama on course; as per our clearance as we understood it). ATC then gave us a heading of 120 degrees and told us that baama was actually in that direction. ATC then gave us a phone number to call miami center for a 'possible pilot deviation.' we were not deviating off our charted course; were in navigation mode; and were at out appropriate altitude. Knowing that we were in fact on course to baama I poured over the enroute charts again and found a second waypoint of an identical sounding name (bahma). It was then our assumption that clearance delivery meant to clear us to that identically-pronounced waypoint. However; the clearance did not have this waypoint connected to any of our airways (which would have allowed us to see that baama was not the right waypoint); and it was also a waypoint that was newly included in the reroute (not listed on our original flight plan; which would also have told us that baama was incorrect). I would have asked for clarification on the spelling of baama from clearance delivery had I not found this fix acceptably aligned with our route of flight. Contributing to reinforcing our use of the baama waypoint was the fact that after that waypoint; the flight path was smooth and connected seamlessly to our remaining flight plan; so flying to baama made perfect sense to us. The fact that there was another 'baama' waypoint (spelled 'bahma') was not known to us; as these factors; combined with the fact that the clearance was read back correctly and the waypoint in question had a seemingly straightforward pronunciation; we input the baama waypoint into the reroute per our understanding. When we landed the captain called the phone number given to us by ATC. We explained the situation regarding the miscommunication during the receipt of the clearance due to the identically pronounced waypoints within close proximity. The supervisor at the center understood how the confusion occurred and said that ours was a good explanation of why the deviation occurred. I have learned much from my mistake. In the future I will always obtain a full phonetic spelling of all fixes read over a radio received ATC clearance; even when positive reinforcing information confirms my confidence of the fix; the pronunciation is seemingly straightforward; or the waypoint positively aligns with the route of flight. These reinforcing factors are not sufficient to guarantee the fix is accurate. The fact that there could be duplicate waypoints with the same pronunciation in the vicinity warrants increased vigilance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: When a Clearance Delivery revision to their filed clearance included the fix BAAMA or BAHMA the flight crew of a Citation X found the former in a logical position to suit their overall route and were on course toward it when they were questioned by ATC and given a vector. Only after searching diligently did the crew discovered BAHMA; the fix intended by ATC.

Narrative: I requested clearance from ATC while on the ground in OPF. The clearance was 'cleared to TAPA via the MIAMI 2 Departure; BEECH; BAAMA (this is how the waypoint was pronounced by ATC and how it was read back); ZQA; then as filed.' The waypoint BAAMA was spoken as a word; not spelled out letter by letter. OPF Clearance Delivery confirmed that the clearance was read back correctly. This clearance was a partial re-route as the waypoints BEECH; BAAMA; and ZQA were not included in the original flight plan (the original flight plan was: 'KOPF DCT SKIPS BR53V RAJAY A555 COY G633 GABAR UG633…'). While airborne we received a radio call from ATC requesting that I confirm our flight plan route. ATC asked what I showed as my next waypoint after BEECH. I confirmed with ATC that our next fix is BAAMA (we were positively navigating to BAAMA on course; as per our clearance as we understood it). ATC then gave us a heading of 120 degrees and told us that BAAMA was actually in that direction. ATC then gave us a phone number to call Miami Center for a 'possible pilot deviation.' We were not deviating off our charted course; were in NAV mode; and were at out appropriate altitude. Knowing that we were in fact on course to BAAMA I poured over the enroute charts again and found a second waypoint of an identical sounding name (BAHMA). It was then our assumption that Clearance Delivery meant to clear us to that identically-pronounced waypoint. However; the clearance did not have this waypoint connected to any of our airways (which would have allowed us to see that BAAMA was not the right waypoint); and it was also a waypoint that was newly included in the reroute (not listed on our original flight plan; which would also have told us that BAAMA was incorrect). I would have asked for clarification on the spelling of BAAMA from Clearance Delivery had I not found this fix acceptably aligned with our route of flight. Contributing to reinforcing our use of the BAAMA waypoint was the fact that after that waypoint; the flight path was smooth and connected seamlessly to our remaining flight plan; so flying to BAAMA made perfect sense to us. The fact that there was another 'BAAMA' waypoint (spelled 'BAHMA') was not known to us; as these factors; combined with the fact that the clearance was read back correctly and the waypoint in question had a seemingly straightforward pronunciation; we input the BAAMA waypoint into the reroute per our understanding. When we landed the Captain called the phone number given to us by ATC. We explained the situation regarding the miscommunication during the receipt of the clearance due to the identically pronounced waypoints within close proximity. The Supervisor at the Center understood how the confusion occurred and said that ours was a good explanation of why the deviation occurred. I have learned much from my mistake. In the future I will always obtain a full phonetic spelling of all fixes read over a radio received ATC clearance; even when positive reinforcing information confirms my confidence of the fix; the pronunciation is seemingly straightforward; or the waypoint positively aligns with the route of flight. These reinforcing factors are not sufficient to guarantee the fix is accurate. The fact that there could be duplicate waypoints with the same pronunciation in the vicinity warrants increased vigilance.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.