An air carrier DH8 flew the filed route out of eat versus the route given them by the ARTCC controll...

Attributes
ACN	414310
Time
Date	199809
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : eat
State Reference	WA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 6000 msl bound upper : 6000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : dwh
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Dash 8-100
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute airway : zse
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 3400 flight time type : 380
ASRS Report	414310
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 7100 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	414309
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was the first officer, PNF, on a wenatchee, wa, to seattle, wa, flight. I called and requested an IFR clearance from wenatchee to seattle from ZSE on 126.10. I told them that we would be departing runway 30 from wenatchee in 2-3 mins. Our filed clearance to seattle as it's printed on our dispatch release is 'eat.V120.sea.' when the controller issued us the clearance, he said that we were cleared to seattle via V120.eph.EPH4 arrival. Now, unbeknownst to me, the controller wanted us to fly eastbound for traffic separation. We (the captain and I) had no reason to believe that we should fly eastbound rather than west, like our dispatch release clearance specifies. According to the controller (center) we did not cause any traffic conflicts or separation problems. However, the potential was there. Had the controller prefaced his issued clearance to us with the terminology, 'ATC clears XXXX to seattle via revised routing' or 'this is an amendment to your filed clearance, ATC now clears XXXX to seattle via....' had the controller alerted us with the proper terminology this would've alerted both the captain and I to a revised routing. Hence, due to the improper terminology and very similar verbiage in the ATC clearance nothing put the captain and I in a situation to be wary of a change in plans. We didn't have any reason to feel we were doing anything wrong because we weren't given the proper terminology to alert us to a revised clearance. Anytime something different is issued to pilots from ATC, ATC must tell us why they are giving us certain instructions to avoid potential conflicts such as this. Supplemental information from acn 414309: we were given a clearance that was different from our 'canned' route. We didn't notice that the clearance was different because the victor airway that we were cleared via was the same as the airway we were originally filed on V120.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR DH8 FLEW THE FILED RTE OUT OF EAT VERSUS THE RTE GIVEN THEM BY THE ARTCC CTLR. ACFT WENT WBOUND OUT OF EAT INSTEAD OF EBOUND TO EPH AND THE EPH4 ARR.

Narrative: I WAS THE FO, PNF, ON A WENATCHEE, WA, TO SEATTLE, WA, FLT. I CALLED AND REQUESTED AN IFR CLRNC FROM WENATCHEE TO SEATTLE FROM ZSE ON 126.10. I TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD BE DEPARTING RWY 30 FROM WENATCHEE IN 2-3 MINS. OUR FILED CLRNC TO SEATTLE AS IT'S PRINTED ON OUR DISPATCH RELEASE IS 'EAT.V120.SEA.' WHEN THE CTLR ISSUED US THE CLRNC, HE SAID THAT WE WERE CLRED TO SEATTLE VIA V120.EPH.EPH4 ARR. NOW, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME, THE CTLR WANTED US TO FLY EBOUND FOR TFC SEPARATION. WE (THE CAPT AND I) HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD FLY EBOUND RATHER THAN W, LIKE OUR DISPATCH RELEASE CLRNC SPECIFIES. ACCORDING TO THE CTLR (CTR) WE DID NOT CAUSE ANY TFC CONFLICTS OR SEPARATION PROBS. HOWEVER, THE POTENTIAL WAS THERE. HAD THE CTLR PREFACED HIS ISSUED CLRNC TO US WITH THE TERMINOLOGY, 'ATC CLRS XXXX TO SEATTLE VIA REVISED ROUTING' OR 'THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR FILED CLRNC, ATC NOW CLRS XXXX TO SEATTLE VIA....' HAD THE CTLR ALERTED US WITH THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY THIS WOULD'VE ALERTED BOTH THE CAPT AND I TO A REVISED ROUTING. HENCE, DUE TO THE IMPROPER TERMINOLOGY AND VERY SIMILAR VERBIAGE IN THE ATC CLRNC NOTHING PUT THE CAPT AND I IN A SIT TO BE WARY OF A CHANGE IN PLANS. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO FEEL WE WERE DOING ANYTHING WRONG BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GIVEN THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY TO ALERT US TO A REVISED CLRNC. ANYTIME SOMETHING DIFFERENT IS ISSUED TO PLTS FROM ATC, ATC MUST TELL US WHY THEY ARE GIVING US CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS TO AVOID POTENTIAL CONFLICTS SUCH AS THIS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 414309: WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC THAT WAS DIFFERENT FROM OUR 'CANNED' RTE. WE DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THE CLRNC WAS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE VICTOR AIRWAY THAT WE WERE CLRED VIA WAS THE SAME AS THE AIRWAY WE WERE ORIGINALLY FILED ON V120.

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.

An air carrier DH8 flew the filed route out of eat versus the route given them by the ARTCC controller. Aircraft went wbound out of eat instead of eastbound to eph and the EPH4 arrival.