An air carrier medium large transport flew the wrong transition on its SID.

Attributes
ACN	270446
Time
Date	199405
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw
State Reference	TX
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 21000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zfw
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude ground : preflight
Route In Use	departure other departure sid : sid
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 12800 flight time type : 1900
ASRS Report	270446
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course flight crew : became reoriented other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation
Situations
Publication	Unspecified

Narrative:

I loaded the flight plan routing into the FMS. It called for the dallas 9 departure, mei transition. When I looked at the pre departure clearance, I failed to note that the cleared routing was different, ie, dallas 9 departure, shv transition. J-4 met, then as filed. Climbing through 21000 ft, fort worth center questioned our routing. Only then did we note the discrepancy. The first officer had not caught the error. I see this as a human factors problem. In every clearance we receive, there are both objective and subjective applications: objective in this sense that we do certain things with the numbers received such as setting the altitude window or heading selector, subjective in that we must mentally process the numbers in light of the total operation of the aircraft. With the pre departure clearance, we've become conditioned to the objective side of the equation because the clearance agrees with the flight plan routing 99 percent of the time. Perhaps this could be improved upon by making a stronger reminder on the pre departure clearance alerting us to variances between flight plan routing and 'cleared' routing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MLG FLEW THE WRONG TRANSITION ON ITS SID.

Narrative: I LOADED THE FLT PLAN RTING INTO THE FMS. IT CALLED FOR THE DALLAS 9 DEP, MEI TRANSITION. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PDC, I FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE CLRED ROUTING WAS DIFFERENT, IE, DALLAS 9 DEP, SHV TRANSITION. J-4 MET, THEN AS FILED. CLBING THROUGH 21000 FT, FORT WORTH CTR QUESTIONED OUR RTING. ONLY THEN DID WE NOTE THE DISCREPANCY. THE FO HAD NOT CAUGHT THE ERROR. I SEE THIS AS A HUMAN FACTORS PROB. IN EVERY CLRNC WE RECEIVE, THERE ARE BOTH OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE APPLICATIONS: OBJECTIVE IN THIS SENSE THAT WE DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH THE NUMBERS RECEIVED SUCH AS SETTING THE ALT WINDOW OR HDG SELECTOR, SUBJECTIVE IN THAT WE MUST MENTALLY PROCESS THE NUMBERS IN LIGHT OF THE TOTAL OP OF THE ACFT. WITH THE PDC, WE'VE BECOME CONDITIONED TO THE OBJECTIVE SIDE OF THE EQUATION BECAUSE THE CLRNC AGREES WITH THE FLT PLAN RTING 99 PERCENT OF THE TIME. PERHAPS THIS COULD BE IMPROVED UPON BY MAKING A STRONGER REMINDER ON THE PDC ALERTING US TO VARIANCES BTWN FLT PLAN ROUTING AND 'CLRED' ROUTING.

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.