Air carrier flight crew is flummoxed by confusing and apparently contradictory route information on ...

Attributes
ACN	791962
Time
Date	200806
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : jax.airport
State Reference	FL
Altitude	agl single value : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : lax.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 224
ASRS Report	791962
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	FAA Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	FAA

Narrative:

Received clearance via pre departure clearance charts. The flight plan as filed was SAWGY1.omn.FISEL2. The pre departure clearance returned a preferred departure route as follows '-omn FISEL2-'. Later in the pre departure clearance text it said 'after departure fly the sawgy departure maintain 3000 ft.' I thought that the preferred departure route takes precedence. I am confused as to why the pdr said direct ormond beach and then later in the pre departure clearance; it said to fly the sawgy departure since ormond beach is the last fix on the SID. I discussed this with the captain and decided to leave the whole sawgy SID in the FMC as we could more easily go direct omn than reprogram the FMC. When we departed; ATC indeed said resume the sawgy departure. Instead of assuming anything; I queried ATC and we were cleared direct sawgy for the departure. This was the end of this incident. I am reporting it simply to highlight that there are still inconsistencies with how we are cleared and what pre departure clearance says and what ATC apparently expects.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLT CREW IS FLUMMOXED BY CONFUSING AND APPARENTLY CONTRADICTORY RTE INFORMATION ON THEIR PDC. OPT NOT TO CLARIFY IT UNTIL AIRBORNE AT WHICH POINT A SOLUTION IS AD-LIBBED BY ATC.

Narrative: RECEIVED CLRNC VIA PDC CHARTS. THE FLT PLAN AS FILED WAS SAWGY1.OMN.FISEL2. THE PDC RETURNED A PREFERRED DEP RTE AS FOLLOWS '-OMN FISEL2-'. LATER IN THE PDC TEXT IT SAID 'AFTER DEP FLY THE SAWGY DEP MAINTAIN 3000 FT.' I THOUGHT THAT THE PREFERRED DEP RTE TAKES PRECEDENCE. I AM CONFUSED AS TO WHY THE PDR SAID DIRECT ORMOND BEACH AND THEN LATER IN THE PDC; IT SAID TO FLY THE SAWGY DEP SINCE ORMOND BEACH IS THE LAST FIX ON THE SID. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE CAPT AND DECIDED TO LEAVE THE WHOLE SAWGY SID IN THE FMC AS WE COULD MORE EASILY GO DIRECT OMN THAN REPROGRAM THE FMC. WHEN WE DEPARTED; ATC INDEED SAID RESUME THE SAWGY DEP. INSTEAD OF ASSUMING ANYTHING; I QUERIED ATC AND WE WERE CLEARED DIRECT SAWGY FOR THE DEP. THIS WAS THE END OF THIS INCIDENT. I AM RPTING IT SIMPLY TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE ARE STILL INCONSISTENCIES WITH HOW WE ARE CLEARED AND WHAT PDC SAYS AND WHAT ATC APPARENTLY EXPECTS.

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.

Air carrier flight crew is flummoxed by confusing and apparently contradictory route information on their pre departure clearance. Opt not to clarify it until airborne at which point a solution is ad-libbed by ATC.