Air carrier flight crew was misled by company's confusing filed routing clearance.

Attributes
ACN	307970
Time
Date	199506
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : aml
State Reference	VA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 28000 msl bound upper : 28000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zny tower : dca
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 80 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 80
ASRS Report	307970
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 145 flight time total : 12380 flight time type : 8100
ASRS Report	307729
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We were navigating J220, approximately 65 mi north of aml VOR, ZNY assigned us 20 degrees right for the climb. (That put us on about a 30 degree heading.) about 5 mins later, we were assigned a 330 degree heading to reintercept J220. When we rolled out on 330 degree heading, the radial came alive very quickly so first officer began a turn to the northeast to reintercept. The captain believed that at micah intersection we were almost on the buf 162 degree radial and instructed first officer to fly 340 degrees to track buf 162 degrees. Nyc at that time informed us that we had flown through J220. Captain stated (incorrectly) that after micah our clearance was direct buf. Clearance was then given direct buf. No traffic conflict was involved. The typed clearance 'J220 micah J220 buf 162' is confusing, should read 'J220...buf 162.' also with 2 60-degree turns within 3-5 mins to track a radial, it is very easy to get off course! Supplemental information from acn 307729: we were nearing micah intersection. Micah, for some reason, was distinguished on our flight plan. I thought that our clearance after micah was direct buf on the buf 162 degree radial. I attribute that to not-at-the-moment reviewing the printed routing, but looking for a magnetic course from the 'guts' of the computer flight plan in case buf VOR was not yet receivable. ZNY controller said that we had overshot J220. I said that we had reached micah intersection and were proceeding direct buf. He said that he showed our routing as J220 to intercept the buf 162 degree radial to buf. No traffic conflict was noted or mentioned either at that time, nor during a telephone conversation with the center later in the day. '...J220 buf 162 degree radial...' would have had no extraneous information. The point at which the buf 162 degree radial intercepts J220 is not a named or depicted intersection. This was the 4TH duty day (3RD day of the trip) for the first officer and me. Minor cumulative fatigue and/or complacency could have contributed to the less than thorough review by both crew members.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC WAS MISLED BY COMPANY'S CONFUSING FILED ROUTING CLRNC.

Narrative: WE WERE NAVING J220, APPROX 65 MI N OF AML VOR, ZNY ASSIGNED US 20 DEGS R FOR THE CLB. (THAT PUT US ON ABOUT A 30 DEG HDG.) ABOUT 5 MINS LATER, WE WERE ASSIGNED A 330 DEG HDG TO REINTERCEPT J220. WHEN WE ROLLED OUT ON 330 DEG HDG, THE RADIAL CAME ALIVE VERY QUICKLY SO FO BEGAN A TURN TO THE NE TO REINTERCEPT. THE CAPT BELIEVED THAT AT MICAH INTXN WE WERE ALMOST ON THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL AND INSTRUCTED FO TO FLY 340 DEGS TO TRACK BUF 162 DEGS. NYC AT THAT TIME INFORMED US THAT WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH J220. CAPT STATED (INCORRECTLY) THAT AFTER MICAH OUR CLRNC WAS DIRECT BUF. CLRNC WAS THEN GIVEN DIRECT BUF. NO TFC CONFLICT WAS INVOLVED. THE TYPED CLRNC 'J220 MICAH J220 BUF 162' IS CONFUSING, SHOULD READ 'J220...BUF 162.' ALSO WITH 2 60-DEG TURNS WITHIN 3-5 MINS TO TRACK A RADIAL, IT IS VERY EASY TO GET OFF COURSE! SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 307729: WE WERE NEARING MICAH INTXN. MICAH, FOR SOME REASON, WAS DISTINGUISHED ON OUR FLT PLAN. I THOUGHT THAT OUR CLRNC AFTER MICAH WAS DIRECT BUF ON THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL. I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO NOT-AT-THE-MOMENT REVIEWING THE PRINTED ROUTING, BUT LOOKING FOR A MAGNETIC COURSE FROM THE 'GUTS' OF THE COMPUTER FLT PLAN IN CASE BUF VOR WAS NOT YET RECEIVABLE. ZNY CTLR SAID THAT WE HAD OVERSHOT J220. I SAID THAT WE HAD REACHED MICAH INTXN AND WERE PROCEEDING DIRECT BUF. HE SAID THAT HE SHOWED OUR ROUTING AS J220 TO INTERCEPT THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL TO BUF. NO TFC CONFLICT WAS NOTED OR MENTIONED EITHER AT THAT TIME, NOR DURING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE CTR LATER IN THE DAY. '...J220 BUF 162 DEG RADIAL...' WOULD HAVE HAD NO EXTRANEOUS INFO. THE POINT AT WHICH THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL INTERCEPTS J220 IS NOT A NAMED OR DEPICTED INTXN. THIS WAS THE 4TH DUTY DAY (3RD DAY OF THE TRIP) FOR THE FO AND ME. MINOR CUMULATIVE FATIGUE AND/OR COMPLACENCY COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LESS THAN THOROUGH REVIEW BY BOTH CREW MEMBERS.

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.