Narrative:

ZOA removed us from a SID departure by telling us to maintain present heading, he would call our eastbound turn. When cleared to turn, both myself and the first officer understood and read back 'cleared direct mina.' we informed ATC we needed initial heading. We then understood the clearance as 'fly heading 070 degrees, direct mina as able,' and read it back as such. There was no ATC response or correction to this readback, and we proceeded direct mina. Another ATC sector subsequently asked us what route clearance we had received, to which we responded 'heading 070 degrees, direct mina when able.' after landing, a phone call to ZOA revealed they insisted the clearance was 'cleared direct linden.' this was a complete surprise to us as neither of us had any doubt as to what we heard in the cockpit. The ATC supervisor indicated the investigation was being handed over to FSDO-FAA for further investigation. This event serves as one example of what can happen when a clearance is read back and not corrected by ATC. Under current FAA interpretive ruling on clearance readbacks, the full responsibility now falls on the flight crew with no commensurate responsibility shared by ATC. This is the flight crew's last line of defense against misunderstood clrncs. This very onerous ruling does incredible damage to the confidence and trust which must be shared by pilots and controllers, and seriously damages the credibility the FAA might otherwise enjoy in the eyes of all us pilots, be they commercial or otherwise. Both sides will certainly find over time that leaving no fair recourse avenue for fairness and settlement of erroneous communications exchange will do great harm to aviation safety and candid cooperation between pilots and controllers. In 33 yrs of active flying, and 22 yrs of violation-free service to my airline, I have not encountered a more ominous FAA policy in dealing with this type of problem, and I will be extremely reluctant to accept any off-route clearance without a complete clearance verification. Supplemental information from acn 456786: later ZOA asked where we were cleared. We were then given a vector for traffic and then shortly after a vector MVA. ZOA asked us to call them when on the ground for a possible pilot deviation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 FLC IS CLRED DIRECT MINA OFF THE LOUPE 9 DEP AND LATER, AFTER A POSSIBLE TFC CONFLICT, IS ADVISED THAT THEY HAD A PLTDEV. SJC, CA.

Narrative: ZOA REMOVED US FROM A SID DEP BY TELLING US TO MAINTAIN PRESENT HDG, HE WOULD CALL OUR EBOUND TURN. WHEN CLRED TO TURN, BOTH MYSELF AND THE FO UNDERSTOOD AND READ BACK 'CLRED DIRECT MINA.' WE INFORMED ATC WE NEEDED INITIAL HDG. WE THEN UNDERSTOOD THE CLRNC AS 'FLY HDG 070 DEGS, DIRECT MINA AS ABLE,' AND READ IT BACK AS SUCH. THERE WAS NO ATC RESPONSE OR CORRECTION TO THIS READBACK, AND WE PROCEEDED DIRECT MINA. ANOTHER ATC SECTOR SUBSEQUENTLY ASKED US WHAT RTE CLRNC WE HAD RECEIVED, TO WHICH WE RESPONDED 'HDG 070 DEGS, DIRECT MINA WHEN ABLE.' AFTER LNDG, A PHONE CALL TO ZOA REVEALED THEY INSISTED THE CLRNC WAS 'CLRED DIRECT LINDEN.' THIS WAS A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO US AS NEITHER OF US HAD ANY DOUBT AS TO WHAT WE HEARD IN THE COCKPIT. THE ATC SUPVR INDICATED THE INVESTIGATION WAS BEING HANDED OVER TO FSDO-FAA FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. THIS EVENT SERVES AS ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN A CLRNC IS READ BACK AND NOT CORRECTED BY ATC. UNDER CURRENT FAA INTERPRETIVE RULING ON CLRNC READBACKS, THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY NOW FALLS ON THE FLC WITH NO COMMENSURATE RESPONSIBILITY SHARED BY ATC. THIS IS THE FLC'S LAST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST MISUNDERSTOOD CLRNCS. THIS VERY ONEROUS RULING DOES INCREDIBLE DAMAGE TO THE CONFIDENCE AND TRUST WHICH MUST BE SHARED BY PLTS AND CTLRS, AND SERIOUSLY DAMAGES THE CREDIBILITY THE FAA MIGHT OTHERWISE ENJOY IN THE EYES OF ALL US PLTS, BE THEY COMMERCIAL OR OTHERWISE. BOTH SIDES WILL CERTAINLY FIND OVER TIME THAT LEAVING NO FAIR RECOURSE AVENUE FOR FAIRNESS AND SETTLEMENT OF ERRONEOUS COMS EXCHANGE WILL DO GREAT HARM TO AVIATION SAFETY AND CANDID COOPERATION BTWN PLTS AND CTLRS. IN 33 YRS OF ACTIVE FLYING, AND 22 YRS OF VIOLATION-FREE SVC TO MY AIRLINE, I HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED A MORE OMINOUS FAA POLICY IN DEALING WITH THIS TYPE OF PROB, AND I WILL BE EXTREMELY RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT ANY OFF-RTE CLRNC WITHOUT A COMPLETE CLRNC VERIFICATION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 456786: LATER ZOA ASKED WHERE WE WERE CLRED. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A VECTOR FOR TFC AND THEN SHORTLY AFTER A VECTOR MVA. ZOA ASKED US TO CALL THEM WHEN ON THE GND FOR A POSSIBLE PLTDEV.

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.