Narrative:

We were climbing out after take-off from hou on radar vectors heading 350 degrees when approach instructed us to proceed direct dartr and continue as filed on our flight plan. We responded that dartr was not on our clearance or flight plan. Departure instructed us to maintain heading 010 degrees and climb to FL230 as we sorted out the discrepancy. Departure asked us if we had el dorado (eld) on our clearance which we responded we were executing the lufkin 5 departure out of hou per our pre departure clearance but after closer examination of the pre departure clearance the captain and I realized that the pre departure clearance did contain the ELD1.eld SID. We quickly loaded the eld 1 departure into the FMS and told departure that we could proceed to dartr and comply with the SID. Departure instructed us to proceed to eld then continue with our flight planned route as filed which terminated in an uneventful landing. Center requested that we contact houston center upon arrival so we could discuss the confusion with the SID. Close examination of the pre departure clearance received from hou clearance delivery revealed the following: 'pre departure clearance: ATC clearance: ELD1 eld then as filed. Filed flight plan: hou LFK5 lfk luric/ZZZ. Squawk! The captain and myself had read the pre departure clearance to be the LFK5 as filed when loading and checking the FMS on pre-flight prior to push back from the gate which resulted in our questioning the routing when asked to proceed direct to dartr then as filed. Our learning response from this event is to ensure careful examination of pdcs to prevent confusion in the future but we would also recommend that the pre departure clearance be formatted to reflect the deletion of the appropriate portion of the filed flight plan 'filed flight plan: eld J29.' this should help prevent future crews from making the same mistake that we did today.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB 190 FLT CREW DEPARTING HOU MISSES REVISED SID ON PDC AND CANNOT INITIALLY COMPLY WITH ATC INSTRUCTION TO PROCEED DIRECT DARTR.

Narrative: WE WERE CLBING OUT AFTER TAKE-OFF FROM HOU ON RADAR VECTORS HDG 350 DEGS WHEN APCH INSTRUCTED US TO PROCEED DIRECT DARTR AND CONTINUE AS FILED ON OUR FLT PLAN. WE RESPONDED THAT DARTR WAS NOT ON OUR CLRNC OR FLT PLAN. DEP INSTRUCTED US TO MAINTAIN HDG 010 DEGS AND CLB TO FL230 AS WE SORTED OUT THE DISCREPANCY. DEP ASKED US IF WE HAD EL DORADO (ELD) ON OUR CLRNC WHICH WE RESPONDED WE WERE EXECUTING THE LUFKIN 5 DEP OUT OF HOU PER OUR PDC BUT AFTER CLOSER EXAMINATION OF THE PDC THE CAPT AND I REALIZED THAT THE PDC DID CONTAIN THE ELD1.ELD SID. WE QUICKLY LOADED THE ELD 1 DEP INTO THE FMS AND TOLD DEP THAT WE COULD PROCEED TO DARTR AND COMPLY WITH THE SID. DEPARTURE INSTRUCTED US TO PROCEED TO ELD THEN CONTINUE WITH OUR FLT PLANNED RTE AS FILED WHICH TERMINATED IN AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. CENTER REQUESTED THAT WE CONTACT HOUSTON CENTER UPON ARR SO WE COULD DISCUSS THE CONFUSION WITH THE SID. CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE PDC RECEIVED FROM HOU CLRNC DELIVERY REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: 'PDC: ATC CLRNC: ELD1 ELD THEN AS FILED. FILED FLT PLAN: HOU LFK5 LFK LURIC/ZZZ. SQUAWK! THE CAPT AND MYSELF HAD READ THE PDC TO BE THE LFK5 AS FILED WHEN LOADING AND CHKING THE FMS ON PRE-FLT PRIOR TO PUSH BACK FROM THE GATE WHICH RESULTED IN OUR QUESTIONING THE ROUTING WHEN ASKED TO PROCEED DIRECT TO DARTR THEN AS FILED. OUR LEARNING RESPONSE FROM THIS EVENT IS TO ENSURE CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF PDCS TO PREVENT CONFUSION IN THE FUTURE BUT WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE PDC BE FORMATTED TO REFLECT THE DELETION OF THE APPROPRIATE PORTION OF THE FILED FLT PLAN 'FILED FLT PLAN: ELD J29.' THIS SHOULD HELP PREVENT FUTURE CREWS FROM MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT WE DID TODAY.

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.