Narrative:

Our flight plan called for the eagul SID, so that is what I flew with no problems at first. After a couple of mins, the controller asked what we were doing and the first officer reported us on the eagul SID. The controller said we were supposed to be on the st johns SID. The first officer consulted the pre departure clearance printout again, and confirmed that we should be on the eagul SID. The first officer asked the controller for instructions, and we got a vector to rejoin the st johns SID. The controller said he showed us about 6 mi off the st johns SID. After we changed frequencys and had a spare moment, I checked the pre departure clearance printout and found that we had indeed been cleared for the st johns SID (a change from the flight plan). There was no known traffic conflict. Normally, I check the pre departure clearance before departure. This first officer is competent and was sure of our clearance, and I did not check the pre departure clearance before departure this time. In the future, I will certainly check the pre departure clearance early and carefully. Supplemental information from acn 279385: I misread the pre departure clearance from phx on the pre departure clearance the ATC clearance and flight plan was listed. The flight plan called for us to fly the eagul 2 departure which is what we flew until ATC advised us we were off course. After the prompt from ATC, I re-read the pre departure clearance and then noticed that the clearance was different than the flight plan. The problem arose by not carefully reading the pre departure clearance and also the way in which I clip the pre departure clearance under the departure SID on the yoke did not make it possible to verify it easily although this was the crew's fault a human factors mistake, I would suggest that on the pre departure clearance only the actual clearance route be represented. The flight plan route on the pre departure clearance is unnecessary.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HDG TRACK DEV.

Narrative: OUR FLT PLAN CALLED FOR THE EAGUL SID, SO THAT IS WHAT I FLEW WITH NO PROBS AT FIRST. AFTER A COUPLE OF MINS, THE CTLR ASKED WHAT WE WERE DOING AND THE FO RPTED US ON THE EAGUL SID. THE CTLR SAID WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE ST JOHNS SID. THE FO CONSULTED THE PDC PRINTOUT AGAIN, AND CONFIRMED THAT WE SHOULD BE ON THE EAGUL SID. THE FO ASKED THE CTLR FOR INSTRUCTIONS, AND WE GOT A VECTOR TO REJOIN THE ST JOHNS SID. THE CTLR SAID HE SHOWED US ABOUT 6 MI OFF THE ST JOHNS SID. AFTER WE CHANGED FREQS AND HAD A SPARE MOMENT, I CHKED THE PDC PRINTOUT AND FOUND THAT WE HAD INDEED BEEN CLRED FOR THE ST JOHNS SID (A CHANGE FROM THE FLT PLAN). THERE WAS NO KNOWN TFC CONFLICT. NORMALLY, I CHK THE PDC BEFORE DEP. THIS FO IS COMPETENT AND WAS SURE OF OUR CLRNC, AND I DID NOT CHK THE PDC BEFORE DEP THIS TIME. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL CERTAINLY CHK THE PDC EARLY AND CAREFULLY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 279385: I MISREAD THE PDC FROM PHX ON THE PDC THE ATC CLRNC AND FLT PLAN WAS LISTED. THE FLT PLAN CALLED FOR US TO FLY THE EAGUL 2 DEP WHICH IS WHAT WE FLEW UNTIL ATC ADVISED US WE WERE OFF COURSE. AFTER THE PROMPT FROM ATC, I RE-READ THE PDC AND THEN NOTICED THAT THE CLRNC WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE FLT PLAN. THE PROB AROSE BY NOT CAREFULLY READING THE PDC AND ALSO THE WAY IN WHICH I CLIP THE PDC UNDER THE DEP SID ON THE YOKE DID NOT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY IT EASILY ALTHOUGH THIS WAS THE CREW'S FAULT A HUMAN FACTORS MISTAKE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ON THE PDC ONLY THE ACTUAL CLRNC RTE BE REPRESENTED. THE FLT PLAN RTE ON THE PDC IS UNNECESSARY.

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.