Narrative:

This event is in regards to our new pre departure clearance capability and the way the pre departure clearance messages are formatted. We had a dispatch release that had us flying the SJN3 departure to stj as filed. The pre departure clearance message indicated 'phx SJN3 sjn J74 ZZZ.' the first officer folded the pre departure clearance so the filed clearance was showing and laid it on the center console where I looked at it. The problem was that the pre departure clearance also contained a 'revised segment' of 'MAXXO1 cnx' which I didn't see. I have never seen this type of annotation on the pdcs. I should have looked at the entire pre departure clearance. The first officer told me he was used to the clearance delivery controller reading the actual clearance we are cleared for which would already incorporate any revisions such as 'cleared as filed except fly MAXXO1 cnx as filed.' the format of the pre departure clearance with exceptions is different enough from the past practices used for verbal clearance transmissions that there can be miscom; such as this. After this happened I required the first officer to write the clearance on the takeoff data sheet by reading from the top down to the bottom and to give me the pre departure clearance paper unfolded; which I verify from the top down confirming routing in the mcdu; transponder; altitude and heading selectors; and radio frequency selector. The actual event didn't involve us flying in the wrong direction as the controller immediately asked us which departure we were cleared for when we made the initial radio contact after leaving tower frequency. In other words we were still flying runway heading. When we responded that we were flying the SJN3 he told us that his paperwork indicated the MAXXO1 cnx and told us to turn left to a southbound heading. When we re-printed the pre departure clearance clearance we discovered our mistake. After reaching our destination I called the phx TRACON supervisor and discussed the matter with him. He told us there had been no conflicts or problems and there would be no violation filed. However; I think that although this was my error in not catching the pre departure clearance interpretation error by the first officer; there is a potential problem with the format of clearance changes/differences shown on the pre departure clearance. It would make more sense to have the pre departure clearance read 'clearance' followed by the route ATC wants the pilots to fly. If a 'revised segment' is necessary; it should read 'departure revised from SJN3 sjn J74 atl to MAXXO1 cnx'. This would have helped avoid any confusion. Contributing factors were time compression caused by some minor maintenance and aircraft servicing issues which demanded my attention. Although I normally read the pre departure clearance clearance in its entirety; this time we were pressed for time and the pre departure clearance paper was folded in such a way that I didn't see the revision section. This first officer is very qualified and competent and has never made an error of this type before with me; so I trusted what I was seeing as correct. That it happened at all was my responsibility as I didn't read the entire pre departure clearance this time. The revised segment format is a bit confusing. The pre departure clearance should show exactly what a flight is cleared for rather than what it is not cleared for. The format of the pre departure clearance should be changed as indicated above. In the past when clrncs were delivered by voice radio transmissions; the captain seldom listened in on this and trusted the first officer to write down the clearance correctly. That the captain should now have to review the pre departure clearance is somewhat counter to past practices before the clearance receipt process was automated.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW FAILS TO HEED REVISED SEGMENT OF PDC CLRNC TO FLY ST JOHNS SID VICE MAXXO.

Narrative: THIS EVENT IS IN REGARDS TO OUR NEW PDC CAPABILITY AND THE WAY THE PDC MESSAGES ARE FORMATTED. WE HAD A DISPATCH RELEASE THAT HAD US FLYING THE SJN3 DEP TO STJ AS FILED. THE PDC MESSAGE INDICATED 'PHX SJN3 SJN J74 ZZZ.' THE FO FOLDED THE PDC SO THE FILED CLRNC WAS SHOWING AND LAID IT ON THE CENTER CONSOLE WHERE I LOOKED AT IT. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE PDC ALSO CONTAINED A 'REVISED SEGMENT' OF 'MAXXO1 CNX' WHICH I DIDN'T SEE. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS TYPE OF ANNOTATION ON THE PDCS. I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE PDC. THE FO TOLD ME HE WAS USED TO THE CLRNC DELIVERY CTLR READING THE ACTUAL CLRNC WE ARE CLRED FOR WHICH WOULD ALREADY INCORPORATE ANY REVISIONS SUCH AS 'CLRED AS FILED EXCEPT FLY MAXXO1 CNX AS FILED.' THE FORMAT OF THE PDC WITH EXCEPTIONS IS DIFFERENT ENOUGH FROM THE PAST PRACTICES USED FOR VERBAL CLRNC TRANSMISSIONS THAT THERE CAN BE MISCOM; SUCH AS THIS. AFTER THIS HAPPENED I REQUIRED THE FO TO WRITE THE CLRNC ON THE TAKEOFF DATA SHEET BY READING FROM THE TOP DOWN TO THE BOTTOM AND TO GIVE ME THE PDC PAPER UNFOLDED; WHICH I VERIFY FROM THE TOP DOWN CONFIRMING ROUTING IN THE MCDU; TRANSPONDER; ALTITUDE AND HEADING SELECTORS; AND RADIO FREQUENCY SELECTOR. THE ACTUAL EVENT DIDN'T INVOLVE US FLYING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AS THE CTLR IMMEDIATELY ASKED US WHICH DEP WE WERE CLRED FOR WHEN WE MADE THE INITIAL RADIO CONTACT AFTER LEAVING TOWER FREQ. IN OTHER WORDS WE WERE STILL FLYING RWY HDG. WHEN WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE FLYING THE SJN3 HE TOLD US THAT HIS PAPERWORK INDICATED THE MAXXO1 CNX AND TOLD US TO TURN L TO A SOUTHBOUND HDG. WHEN WE RE-PRINTED THE PDC CLRNC WE DISCOVERED OUR MISTAKE. AFTER REACHING OUR DESTINATION I CALLED THE PHX TRACON SUPVR AND DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH HIM. HE TOLD US THERE HAD BEEN NO CONFLICTS OR PROBLEMS AND THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION FILED. HOWEVER; I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS MY ERROR IN NOT CATCHING THE PDC INTERPRETATION ERROR BY THE FO; THERE IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THE FORMAT OF CLRNC CHANGES/DIFFERENCES SHOWN ON THE PDC. IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO HAVE THE PDC READ 'CLRNC' FOLLOWED BY THE RTE ATC WANTS THE PLTS TO FLY. IF A 'REVISED SEGMENT' IS NECESSARY; IT SHOULD READ 'DEP REVISED FROM SJN3 SJN J74 ATL TO MAXXO1 CNX'. THIS WOULD HAVE HELPED AVOID ANY CONFUSION. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE TIME COMPRESSION CAUSED BY SOME MINOR MAINT AND ACFT SERVICING ISSUES WHICH DEMANDED MY ATTENTION. ALTHOUGH I NORMALLY READ THE PDC CLRNC IN ITS ENTIRETY; THIS TIME WE WERE PRESSED FOR TIME AND THE PDC PAPER WAS FOLDED IN SUCH A WAY THAT I DIDN'T SEE THE REVISION SECTION. THIS FO IS VERY QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT AND HAS NEVER MADE AN ERROR OF THIS TYPE BEFORE WITH ME; SO I TRUSTED WHAT I WAS SEEING AS CORRECT. THAT IT HAPPENED AT ALL WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY AS I DIDN'T READ THE ENTIRE PDC THIS TIME. THE REVISED SEGMENT FORMAT IS A BIT CONFUSING. THE PDC SHOULD SHOW EXACTLY WHAT A FLT IS CLRED FOR RATHER THAN WHAT IT IS NOT CLRED FOR. THE FORMAT OF THE PDC SHOULD BE CHANGED AS INDICATED ABOVE. IN THE PAST WHEN CLRNCS WERE DELIVERED BY VOICE RADIO TRANSMISSIONS; THE CAPT SELDOM LISTENED IN ON THIS AND TRUSTED THE FO TO WRITE DOWN THE CLRNC CORRECTLY. THAT THE CAPT SHOULD NOW HAVE TO REVIEW THE PDC IS SOMEWHAT COUNTER TO PAST PRACTICES BEFORE THE CLRNC RECEIPT PROCESS WAS AUTOMATED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.