Narrative:

Our flight had been filed from flight dispatch yqd nca 13 yoj...anc. No NOTAMS had been given to flight crew from dispatch about any change to the airway 'nca 13' between yqd-yoj. The printed flight plan showed in order: yqd, petma, tukop, dentu, yoj. Unable to find petma, tulag, or apima on the canada (tulag)/alaska (apima) high 1-2 chart and after again making sure that the routing was yqd nca 13 yoj, the first officer and myself decided to fly nca 13 as it was shown on the most current chart. However, the portion of nca 13 between yqd and yoj had been changed. Edmonton center asked us after he showed us off course, to say our next fix. We responded 'tukop.' he then told us that tukop no longer existed. We then (with a few corrections) got back on the revised nca 13 airway. I feel that the flight crew should have been somehow given the 'heads up' that the airway had changed. Maybe a NOTAM given to us in our flight departure papers, or an oral brief from our flight dispatcher. Also shouldn't the flight navigation charts be revised before an airway is changed? It can be very confusing having contradicting information. On my part, as the captain, as soon as I noted a discrepancy with the flight plan, I should have questioned the controller to confirm the portion of the flight plan in question.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF B747 FAIL TO CLARIFY DISCREPANCY BTWN FILED RTE AND HIGH ALT CHARTS OVER CANADA. TRACK DEV RESULTS.

Narrative: OUR FLT HAD BEEN FILED FROM FLT DISPATCH YQD NCA 13 YOJ...ANC. NO NOTAMS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO FLT CREW FROM DISPATCH ABOUT ANY CHANGE TO THE AIRWAY 'NCA 13' BTWN YQD-YOJ. THE PRINTED FLT PLAN SHOWED IN ORDER: YQD, PETMA, TUKOP, DENTU, YOJ. UNABLE TO FIND PETMA, TULAG, OR APIMA ON THE CANADA (TULAG)/ALASKA (APIMA) HIGH 1-2 CHART AND AFTER AGAIN MAKING SURE THAT THE ROUTING WAS YQD NCA 13 YOJ, THE FO AND MYSELF DECIDED TO FLY NCA 13 AS IT WAS SHOWN ON THE MOST CURRENT CHART. HOWEVER, THE PORTION OF NCA 13 BTWN YQD AND YOJ HAD BEEN CHANGED. EDMONTON CTR ASKED US AFTER HE SHOWED US OFF COURSE, TO SAY OUR NEXT FIX. WE RESPONDED 'TUKOP.' HE THEN TOLD US THAT TUKOP NO LONGER EXISTED. WE THEN (WITH A FEW CORRECTIONS) GOT BACK ON THE REVISED NCA 13 AIRWAY. I FEEL THAT THE FLT CREW SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEHOW GIVEN THE 'HEADS UP' THAT THE AIRWAY HAD CHANGED. MAYBE A NOTAM GIVEN TO US IN OUR FLT DEP PAPERS, OR AN ORAL BRIEF FROM OUR FLT DISPATCHER. ALSO SHOULDN'T THE FLT NAV CHARTS BE REVISED BEFORE AN AIRWAY IS CHANGED? IT CAN BE VERY CONFUSING HAVING CONTRADICTING INFO. ON MY PART, AS THE CAPT, AS SOON AS I NOTED A DISCREPANCY WITH THE FLT PLAN, I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CTLR TO CONFIRM THE PORTION OF THE FLT PLAN IN QUESTION.

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.