Narrative:

We were late; we were rushed. Isn't that how these always start out? I was listening to the ATIS as I copied down the pre departure clearance clearance. I looked at the pre departure clearance and saw exactly what I expected to see..'sea..mwh.J34.bil.J151... (Etc.) also (further down) the mount 5 departure -- all the things I expected to see. I checked the route in the FMC; entered the mount 5 departure; looked over the departure SID; and everything was as I expected it should be. After an uneventful taxi and takeoff; we were on the 161 rad off sea as per the mount 5 departure and given; 'left turn direct normy.' I asked him to repeat the fix and when neither of us could find the fix; I told him that it was not on our flight plan. ATC responded; 'ok; turn to a heading of 050 degrees and I will work it out.' so we did. Then he asked what our clearance was; and I told him ..'sea..mwh.J34.bil.J151...' after a few moments he came back and said he showed our clearance as sea.J90.mwh.J34.... And you are cleared direct normy J90 mwh.. Normy is on J90. We entered normy in the FMC and proceeded direct (same heading) entered J90 mwh in the FMC and continued. Later we reviewed the pre departure clearance clearance and discovered I had missed the '-sea.J90.mwh-' right above the 'as filed' clearance; which would have given us the normy fix and the proper programming of the FMC. Pre departure clearance clearance is a very good thing; but when there is a difference in the filed route and a new route via pre departure clearance clearance instead of just a line (-sea.J90.mwh-) maybe make a more distinct annotation and do not have the filed route directly next to (below) the 'reroute.' many of the times I have seen the '-fix.fix.fix-' pre departure clearance clearance reroute; it has been with a 'see filed route' dispatch release; and the -;;- pre departure clearance clearance is usually the same as the new 'see filed route' dispatch release. I do not deny that I failed to recognize the amended route clearance on the pre departure clearance. I should have seen and properly programmed the FMC with the new route. I would suggest that in order to avoid more problems like this in the future; a more distinct emphasis be placed on the pre departure clearance 'new route' clearance (-.fix.fix..-) and not placing the 'new route' pre departure clearance clearance right next to the 'as previously filed' route pre departure clearance clearance. I would even suggest completely removing the as previously filed route; and just print the current pre departure clearance clearance filed routing. Our eyes see what we expect to see.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW FAILED TO NOTICE THE CHANGE IN ROUTING IN THE PDC. THE ANOMALY WAS DISCOVERED WHEN ATC ISSUED CLRNC DIRECT TO A FIX WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PROGRAMMED INTO THE FMC.

Narrative: WE WERE LATE; WE WERE RUSHED. ISN'T THAT HOW THESE ALWAYS START OUT? I WAS LISTENING TO THE ATIS AS I COPIED DOWN THE PDC CLRNC. I LOOKED AT THE PDC AND SAW EXACTLY WHAT I EXPECTED TO SEE..'SEA..MWH.J34.BIL.J151... (ETC.) ALSO (FURTHER DOWN) THE MOUNT 5 DEP -- ALL THE THINGS I EXPECTED TO SEE. I CHKED THE RTE IN THE FMC; ENTERED THE MOUNT 5 DEP; LOOKED OVER THE DEP SID; AND EVERYTHING WAS AS I EXPECTED IT SHOULD BE. AFTER AN UNEVENTFUL TAXI AND TAKEOFF; WE WERE ON THE 161 RAD OFF SEA AS PER THE MOUNT 5 DEP AND GIVEN; 'LEFT TURN DIRECT NORMY.' I ASKED HIM TO REPEAT THE FIX AND WHEN NEITHER OF US COULD FIND THE FIX; I TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS NOT ON OUR FLT PLAN. ATC RESPONDED; 'OK; TURN TO A HEADING OF 050 DEGS AND I WILL WORK IT OUT.' SO WE DID. THEN HE ASKED WHAT OUR CLRNC WAS; AND I TOLD HIM ..'SEA..MWH.J34.BIL.J151...' AFTER A FEW MOMENTS HE CAME BACK AND SAID HE SHOWED OUR CLRNC AS SEA.J90.MWH.J34.... AND YOU ARE CLEARED DIRECT NORMY J90 MWH.. NORMY IS ON J90. WE ENTERED NORMY IN THE FMC AND PROCEEDED DIRECT (SAME HEADING) ENTERED J90 MWH IN THE FMC AND CONTINUED. LATER WE REVIEWED THE PDC CLRNC AND DISCOVERED I HAD MISSED THE '-SEA.J90.MWH-' RIGHT ABOVE THE 'AS FILED' CLRNC; WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN US THE NORMY FIX AND THE PROPER PROGRAMMING OF THE FMC. PDC CLRNC IS A VERY GOOD THING; BUT WHEN THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE FILED RTE AND A NEW RTE VIA PDC CLRNC INSTEAD OF JUST A LINE (-SEA.J90.MWH-) MAYBE MAKE A MORE DISTINCT ANNOTATION AND DO NOT HAVE THE FILED RTE DIRECTLY NEXT TO (BELOW) THE 'REROUTE.' MANY OF THE TIMES I HAVE SEEN THE '-FIX.FIX.FIX-' PDC CLRNC REROUTE; IT HAS BEEN WITH A 'SEE FILED RTE' DISPATCH RELEASE; AND THE -;;- PDC CLRNC IS USUALLY THE SAME AS THE NEW 'SEE FILED RTE' DISPATCH RELEASE. I DO NOT DENY THAT I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE AMENDED RTE CLRNC ON THE PDC. I SHOULD HAVE SEEN AND PROPERLY PROGRAMMED THE FMC WITH THE NEW RTE. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID MORE PROBLEMS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE; A MORE DISTINCT EMPHASIS BE PLACED ON THE PDC 'NEW RTE' CLRNC (-.FIX.FIX..-) AND NOT PLACING THE 'NEW RTE' PDC CLRNC RIGHT NEXT TO THE 'AS PREVIOUSLY FILED' RTE PDC CLRNC. I WOULD EVEN SUGGEST COMPLETELY REMOVING THE AS PREVIOUSLY FILED RTE; AND JUST PRINT THE CURRENT PDC CLRNC FILED ROUTING. OUR EYES SEE WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE.

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.