Narrative:

Cleared from ord to cvg via O'hare 9 departure gij as filed. As filed in our dispatch release was: ord...gij.V55.fwa.V340.rid...cvg. At 17000 ft in cruise, just passing gij, we requested a more direct route to cvg, and controller asked our heading. We responded '140 degree to become established on V55.' he then told us we were to have been on V6 to sweto intersection instead and that he was going to report the occurrence to his supervisor. We immediately asked him what he wanted us to do, and he told us to just proceed direct to fwa. It was obvious that there was no conflict, but the controller said that, if it were busy, we could have crossed an arrival route into midway airport. We read him our textual clearance and he said he wanted his supervisor to find out where the communication breakdown occurred. The practice for clearance delivery at ord for non-ACARS (us) aircraft is to respond to given clearance with transponder code only. If clearance delivery gives a 'full-route' or modified clearance (different from what is filed) they want a full readback. If he gave us a modified clearance, we did not know that, but would not have had the chance to catch an error because we only readback to the transponder code. As an aside, the clearance controller read 2 clrncs, ours and another flight, before we could respond to ours with our squawk. We do not feel we did anything wrong, or violated any far because we were proceeding with the clearance exactly the way we understood it to be. Without question, there is a communication problem present here, but I believe it to be in clearance delivery or with the en route controller and not with the cockpit crew.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COURSE DEV.

Narrative: CLRED FROM ORD TO CVG VIA O'HARE 9 DEP GIJ AS FILED. AS FILED IN OUR DISPATCH RELEASE WAS: ORD...GIJ.V55.FWA.V340.RID...CVG. AT 17000 FT IN CRUISE, JUST PASSING GIJ, WE REQUESTED A MORE DIRECT RTE TO CVG, AND CTLR ASKED OUR HDG. WE RESPONDED '140 DEG TO BECOME ESTABLISHED ON V55.' HE THEN TOLD US WE WERE TO HAVE BEEN ON V6 TO SWETO INTXN INSTEAD AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO RPT THE OCCURRENCE TO HIS SUPVR. WE IMMEDIATELY ASKED HIM WHAT HE WANTED US TO DO, AND HE TOLD US TO JUST PROCEED DIRECT TO FWA. IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT, BUT THE CTLR SAID THAT, IF IT WERE BUSY, WE COULD HAVE CROSSED AN ARR RTE INTO MIDWAY ARPT. WE READ HIM OUR TEXTUAL CLRNC AND HE SAID HE WANTED HIS SUPVR TO FIND OUT WHERE THE COM BREAKDOWN OCCURRED. THE PRACTICE FOR CLRNC DELIVERY AT ORD FOR NON-ACARS (US) ACFT IS TO RESPOND TO GIVEN CLRNC WITH XPONDER CODE ONLY. IF CLRNC DELIVERY GIVES A 'FULL-RTE' OR MODIFIED CLRNC (DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS FILED) THEY WANT A FULL READBACK. IF HE GAVE US A MODIFIED CLRNC, WE DID NOT KNOW THAT, BUT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO CATCH AN ERROR BECAUSE WE ONLY READBACK TO THE XPONDER CODE. AS AN ASIDE, THE CLRNC CTLR READ 2 CLRNCS, OURS AND ANOTHER FLT, BEFORE WE COULD RESPOND TO OURS WITH OUR SQUAWK. WE DO NOT FEEL WE DID ANYTHING WRONG, OR VIOLATED ANY FAR BECAUSE WE WERE PROCEEDING WITH THE CLRNC EXACTLY THE WAY WE UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE. WITHOUT QUESTION, THERE IS A COM PROB PRESENT HERE, BUT I BELIEVE IT TO BE IN CLRNC DELIVERY OR WITH THE ENRTE CTLR AND NOT WITH THE COCKPIT CREW.

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.