Language problem interferes with interpretation of request for direct routing.

Attributes
ACN	240718
Time
Date	199305
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : lirr
State Reference	FO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 35000 msl bound upper : 35000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute airway : lirr
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	240718
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Rome center was asked if we could proceed direct to sorreno VOR. His response was that direct sorreno was unavailable and that we must proceed over florence. I acknowledged that direct sorreno was unavailable and that we were proceeding via our flight planned route. Nothing else was said. A few mins later, the controller asked where we were going. I responded with our clearance over the airway (UW83) as we were previously cleared. Rome control said he thought we were to go direct to florence and then direct sorreno. I responded that we thought direct sorreno was unavailable and we must have misunderstood. We were then cleared direct to sorreno. It is easy to understand why this clearance was missed as the controller never stated 'cleared to' or 'route to' or any other acceptable language that I would understand as a clearance. In the future I will make sure by questioning the controller any time any fix is mentioned.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LANGUAGE PROB INTERFERES WITH INTERP OF REQUEST FOR DIRECT ROUTING.

Narrative: ROME CTR WAS ASKED IF WE COULD PROCEED DIRECT TO SORRENO VOR. HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT DIRECT SORRENO WAS UNAVAILABLE AND THAT WE MUST PROCEED OVER FLORENCE. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT DIRECT SORRENO WAS UNAVAILABLE AND THAT WE WERE PROCEEDING VIA OUR FLT PLANNED RTE. NOTHING ELSE WAS SAID. A FEW MINS LATER, THE CTLR ASKED WHERE WE WERE GOING. I RESPONDED WITH OUR CLRNC OVER THE AIRWAY (UW83) AS WE WERE PREVIOUSLY CLRED. ROME CTL SAID HE THOUGHT WE WERE TO GO DIRECT TO FLORENCE AND THEN DIRECT SORRENO. I RESPONDED THAT WE THOUGHT DIRECT SORRENO WAS UNAVAILABLE AND WE MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. WE WERE THEN CLRED DIRECT TO SORRENO. IT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS CLRNC WAS MISSED AS THE CTLR NEVER STATED 'CLRED TO' OR 'RTE TO' OR ANY OTHER ACCEPTABLE LANGUAGE THAT I WOULD UNDERSTAND AS A CLRNC. IN THE FUTURE I WILL MAKE SURE BY QUESTIONING THE CTLR ANY TIME ANY FIX IS MENTIONED.

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.