Narrative:

This report concerns the issuance of a route clearance by a clearance delivery facility which conflicted with next center controller's expectation of the route an aircraft was to follow. The first officer called bos clearance delivery to pick up the clearance to buf. During this time frame the frequency was congested. Logan was experiencing heavy rain showers with thunderstorms in the area. Numerous aircraft were inquiring about gate hold information, requesting pushbacks and requesting route clrncs. Clearance delivery issued the clearance mht cam J547 as filed. A review of the us high 8 chart depicted J547 extending across cam syr and buf. Because buf was the destination and included in the J547 routing, the clearance was accepted. Because the ATIS requested that readbacks be restr to transponder codes unless there were questions, the first officer, having no question concerning this routing, did not read it back. En route approximately 30 mi west of syr a ZOB controller inquired if the flight was proceeding direct roc. The captain responded negative, the cleared routing was J547. The center controller stated that routing was what he expected. It is apparent that he expected the flight to follow the company stored IFR routing segment syr roc V51D ehman buf. The controller then placed the flight on a vector, explaining that he needed to put the aircraft in a position so that he could turn it over to buf approach control at a later time. This event had no safety consequence. However, had there been lost communications in an IMC environment, the result could have been different. There was an apparent breakdown error in the issuance of this clearance. I recommend that high density clearance facs that request transponder readbacks only also request routing clearance readbacks if they differ from stored rtes.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DIFFERENCE IN STORED (FILED) FLT PLAN AND CLRNC GIVEN BY BOS CLRNC DELIVERY NOT DETECTED WHEN CLRNC IS ACKNOWLEDGED ONLY BY A TRANSPONDER CODE.

Narrative: THIS RPT CONCERNS THE ISSUANCE OF A RTE CLRNC BY A CLRNC DELIVERY FAC WHICH CONFLICTED WITH NEXT CENTER CTLR'S EXPECTATION OF THE RTE AN ACFT WAS TO FOLLOW. THE F/O CALLED BOS CLRNC DELIVERY TO PICK UP THE CLRNC TO BUF. DURING THIS TIME FRAME THE FREQ WAS CONGESTED. LOGAN WAS EXPERIENCING HEAVY RAIN SHOWERS WITH TSTMS IN THE AREA. NUMEROUS ACFT WERE INQUIRING ABOUT GATE HOLD INFO, REQUESTING PUSHBACKS AND REQUESTING RTE CLRNCS. CLRNC DELIVERY ISSUED THE CLRNC MHT CAM J547 AS FILED. A REVIEW OF THE US HIGH 8 CHART DEPICTED J547 EXTENDING ACROSS CAM SYR AND BUF. BECAUSE BUF WAS THE DEST AND INCLUDED IN THE J547 ROUTING, THE CLRNC WAS ACCEPTED. BECAUSE THE ATIS REQUESTED THAT READBACKS BE RESTR TO XPONDER CODES UNLESS THERE WERE QUESTIONS, THE F/O, HAVING NO QUESTION CONCERNING THIS ROUTING, DID NOT READ IT BACK. ENRTE APPROX 30 MI W OF SYR A ZOB CTLR INQUIRED IF THE FLT WAS PROCEEDING DIRECT ROC. THE CAPT RESPONDED NEGATIVE, THE CLRED RTING WAS J547. THE CENTER CTLR STATED THAT ROUTING WAS WHAT HE EXPECTED. IT IS APPARENT THAT HE EXPECTED THE FLT TO FOLLOW THE COMPANY STORED IFR RTING SEGMENT SYR ROC V51D EHMAN BUF. THE CTLR THEN PLACED THE FLT ON A VECTOR, EXPLAINING THAT HE NEEDED TO PUT THE ACFT IN A POS SO THAT HE COULD TURN IT OVER TO BUF APCH CTL AT A LATER TIME. THIS EVENT HAD NO SAFETY CONSEQUENCE. HOWEVER, HAD THERE BEEN LOST COMS IN AN IMC ENVIRONMENT, THE RESULT COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. THERE WAS AN APPARENT BREAKDOWN ERROR IN THE ISSUANCE OF THIS CLRNC. I RECOMMEND THAT HIGH DENSITY CLRNC FACS THAT REQUEST XPONDER READBACKS ONLY ALSO REQUEST RTING CLRNC READBACKS IF THEY DIFFER FROM STORED RTES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.