Narrative:

ZDV called to verify our route of flight after ckw VOR. The call came just as I was approaching leveloff, and just after I had turned outbound from ckw. A quick check with my copilot showed that I had missed seeing the amended route of flight on the pre departure clearance, although she later said that she thought I was aware of it. Since we were still basically over the VOR, no problem. (ZDV assigned a heading for traffic and assigned a rerte anyway.) the problem that did occur was that this whole sequence, even though it took only a few seconds, started just prior to leveloff. My attention was momentarily directed to resolving the routing, and away from the altitude. The altitude warning sounded at 300 ft high, and I immediately returned to assigned altitude of FL280, but momentarily reached 500 ft high before the climb could be stopped. ZDV noted the altitude, but by then we had already returned to FL280. There were no conflicts, and no traffic at all with range of TCASII (40 mi scope). Contributing factors: 1) our company regularly files a route that ATC never approves on the original clearance, but almost always approves when requested at altitude. I had not flown this flight for a few months, forgot the 'routine' and was about to fly the filed route. The momentary confusion resulted in a lack of attention to leveloff. 2) route amendments are indicated on the pre departure clearance by being enclosed between dashes (-- change --). This is very subtle and easy to miss. I cannot understand the need for code and symbols when plain text could be used. Why not simply say, in nice big letters that are hard to miss 'amended routing'?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF A B727 OVERSHOT ASSIGNED ALT DUE TO DISTR OF A ROUTING CONFLICTION. ATC INTERVENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FLC'S RECOGNITION OF THE ALTDEV TO ALSO QUESTION THEIR ASSIGNED RTE WHICH WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE CREW'S PDC ROUTING.

Narrative: ZDV CALLED TO VERIFY OUR RTE OF FLT AFTER CKW VOR. THE CALL CAME JUST AS I WAS APCHING LEVELOFF, AND JUST AFTER I HAD TURNED OUTBOUND FROM CKW. A QUICK CHK WITH MY COPLT SHOWED THAT I HAD MISSED SEEING THE AMENDED RTE OF FLT ON THE PDC, ALTHOUGH SHE LATER SAID THAT SHE THOUGHT I WAS AWARE OF IT. SINCE WE WERE STILL BASICALLY OVER THE VOR, NO PROB. (ZDV ASSIGNED A HDG FOR TFC AND ASSIGNED A RERTE ANYWAY.) THE PROB THAT DID OCCUR WAS THAT THIS WHOLE SEQUENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT TOOK ONLY A FEW SECONDS, STARTED JUST PRIOR TO LEVELOFF. MY ATTN WAS MOMENTARILY DIRECTED TO RESOLVING THE ROUTING, AND AWAY FROM THE ALT. THE ALT WARNING SOUNDED AT 300 FT HIGH, AND I IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO ASSIGNED ALT OF FL280, BUT MOMENTARILY REACHED 500 FT HIGH BEFORE THE CLB COULD BE STOPPED. ZDV NOTED THE ALT, BUT BY THEN WE HAD ALREADY RETURNED TO FL280. THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS, AND NO TFC AT ALL WITH RANGE OF TCASII (40 MI SCOPE). CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) OUR COMPANY REGULARLY FILES A RTE THAT ATC NEVER APPROVES ON THE ORIGINAL CLRNC, BUT ALMOST ALWAYS APPROVES WHEN REQUESTED AT ALT. I HAD NOT FLOWN THIS FLT FOR A FEW MONTHS, FORGOT THE 'ROUTINE' AND WAS ABOUT TO FLY THE FILED RTE. THE MOMENTARY CONFUSION RESULTED IN A LACK OF ATTN TO LEVELOFF. 2) RTE AMENDMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE PDC BY BEING ENCLOSED BTWN DASHES (-- CHANGE --). THIS IS VERY SUBTLE AND EASY TO MISS. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR CODE AND SYMBOLS WHEN PLAIN TEXT COULD BE USED. WHY NOT SIMPLY SAY, IN NICE BIG LETTERS THAT ARE HARD TO MISS 'AMENDED 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.