Narrative:

En route dayton to fort lauderdale first officer left flight deck for physiological reasons. We had been cleared direct atlanta. As I pached atl I took a 15 degree left turn as my drift correction to the west was tracking us to the right of a direct track. This heading was 165 degree. Moments later the atlanta center directed me to maintain my present heading. Forcasted winds were 270/103 KTS. In a few mins the controller addressed our flight asking if we were flying the assigned heading or J89. At this point I was confused as to what he was asking. We had actually tracked east of J89. I responded that we would fly J89. He abruptly responded that we should fly a heading of 180 degree to intercept J89 southeast of atl. (The first officer had returned to the flight deck to also hear this clearance). His apparent concern for the heading we were flying lead me to believe that he didn't feel that we had flown our assigned heading. No deviations were required although an aircraft was noted on our TCAS passing to our left. No TA was given by the system. My observation: my 15 degree left correction followed by his direction to maintain assigned heading west/O confirming my heading resulted in our aircraft drifting to the east of his desired flight path for our aircraft. Since we had no idea what he was trying to accomplish, we couldn't determine if our flight path was achieving his objective. Better communications during this situation could have improved the outcome.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG TRACK HEADING DEVIATION.

Narrative: ENRTE DAYTON TO FORT LAUDERDALE F/O L FLT DECK FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL REASONS. WE HAD BEEN CLRED DIRECT ATLANTA. AS I PACHED ATL I TOOK A 15 DEG L TURN AS MY DRIFT CORRECTION TO THE W WAS TRACKING US TO THE R OF A DIRECT TRACK. THIS HDG WAS 165 DEG. MOMENTS LATER THE ATLANTA CTR DIRECTED ME TO MAINTAIN MY PRESENT HDG. FORCASTED WINDS WERE 270/103 KTS. IN A FEW MINS THE CTLR ADDRESSED OUR FLT ASKING IF WE WERE FLYING THE ASSIGNED HDG OR J89. AT THIS POINT I WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHAT HE WAS ASKING. WE HAD ACTUALLY TRACKED E OF J89. I RESPONDED THAT WE WOULD FLY J89. HE ABRUPTLY RESPONDED THAT WE SHOULD FLY A HDG OF 180 DEG TO INTERCEPT J89 SE OF ATL. (THE F/O HAD RETURNED TO THE FLT DECK TO ALSO HEAR THIS CLRNC). HIS APPARENT CONCERN FOR THE HDG WE WERE FLYING LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT HE DIDN'T FEEL THAT WE HAD FLOWN OUR ASSIGNED HDG. NO DEVS WERE REQUIRED ALTHOUGH AN ACFT WAS NOTED ON OUR TCAS PASSING TO OUR L. NO TA WAS GIVEN BY THE SYS. MY OBSERVATION: MY 15 DEG L CORRECTION FOLLOWED BY HIS DIRECTION TO MAINTAIN ASSIGNED HDG W/O CONFIRMING MY HDG RESULTED IN OUR ACFT DRIFTING TO THE E OF HIS DESIRED FLT PATH FOR OUR ACFT. SINCE WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WE COULDN'T DETERMINE IF OUR FLT PATH WAS ACHIEVING HIS OBJECTIVE. BETTER COMS DURING THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE IMPROVED THE OUTCOME.

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.