Narrative:

A flight plan css-uio was provided by dispatch departing mia. Routing departing ccs was: mares 1 departure nol alban air carrier X, etc. Upon arrival in ccs, this information was entered into the FMS. During ground operations, there was mention of another flight plan for the same route segment, but I never saw this plan. Standard practice in south and central america is to get the clearance when taxiing or pushed back, as was this case. The clearance was, 'V10 via air carrier X, mares 1 departure, squawk XXXX.' 'roger' the readback. After departure, we flew the mares 1, which is outbound on the 319 degree radial miq, 17 mi for mares. Just prior to reaching mares, the captain started a turn for nol which was on our original flight plan. (The mares 1 departure information ends at mares.) (I (first officer) also am not provided with charts to review.) ATC immediately advised we are essentially off course, and were supposed to fly to atono further up the R319 miq, 37 mi, thence pbl. We immediately turned back and continued as ATC advised. Error off course was approximately 5-6 mi, our turn was 90 degrees from course. The error chain which led to this event began with dispatch providing us with an erroneous flight plan, which was entered into the FMS. The next error was not comparing the 2 flight plans we were later given. Furthermore, a handwritten ICAO plan was provided to the captain, signed for, and never compared with company plan. Finally, the departure and route was only briefed to the minimum information. Once we departed and in our turn over mares, I knew something was wrong and advised the captain to turn back, before ATC called. I should have been more attentive and aggressive in preventing this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INTL FLC MISUNDERSTOOD DEP CLRNC.

Narrative: A FLT PLAN CSS-UIO WAS PROVIDED BY DISPATCH DEPARTING MIA. ROUTING DEPARTING CCS WAS: MARES 1 DEP NOL ALBAN ACR X, ETC. UPON ARR IN CCS, THIS INFO WAS ENTERED INTO THE FMS. DURING GND OPS, THERE WAS MENTION OF ANOTHER FLT PLAN FOR THE SAME RTE SEGMENT, BUT I NEVER SAW THIS PLAN. STANDARD PRACTICE IN SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA IS TO GET THE CLRNC WHEN TAXIING OR PUSHED BACK, AS WAS THIS CASE. THE CLRNC WAS, 'V10 VIA ACR X, MARES 1 DEP, SQUAWK XXXX.' 'ROGER' THE READBACK. AFTER DEP, WE FLEW THE MARES 1, WHICH IS OUTBOUND ON THE 319 DEG RADIAL MIQ, 17 MI FOR MARES. JUST PRIOR TO REACHING MARES, THE CAPT STARTED A TURN FOR NOL WHICH WAS ON OUR ORIGINAL FLT PLAN. (THE MARES 1 DEP INFO ENDS AT MARES.) (I (FO) ALSO AM NOT PROVIDED WITH CHARTS TO REVIEW.) ATC IMMEDIATELY ADVISED WE ARE ESSENTIALLY OFF COURSE, AND WERE SUPPOSED TO FLY TO ATONO FURTHER UP THE R319 MIQ, 37 MI, THENCE PBL. WE IMMEDIATELY TURNED BACK AND CONTINUED AS ATC ADVISED. ERROR OFF COURSE WAS APPROX 5-6 MI, OUR TURN WAS 90 DEGS FROM COURSE. THE ERROR CHAIN WHICH LED TO THIS EVENT BEGAN WITH DISPATCH PROVIDING US WITH AN ERRONEOUS FLT PLAN, WHICH WAS ENTERED INTO THE FMS. THE NEXT ERROR WAS NOT COMPARING THE 2 FLT PLANS WE WERE LATER GIVEN. FURTHERMORE, A HANDWRITTEN ICAO PLAN WAS PROVIDED TO THE CAPT, SIGNED FOR, AND NEVER COMPARED WITH COMPANY PLAN. FINALLY, THE DEP AND RTE WAS ONLY BRIEFED TO THE MINIMUM INFO. ONCE WE DEPARTED AND IN OUR TURN OVER MARES, I KNEW SOMETHING WAS WRONG AND ADVISED THE CAPT TO TURN BACK, BEFORE ATC CALLED. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE AND AGGRESSIVE IN PREVENTING THIS SIT.

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.