Corporate jet flight crew and ATC experience ambiguity about clearance.

Attributes
ACN	119521
Time
Date	198908
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : eno
State Reference	DE
Altitude	msl bound lower : 10000 msl bound upper : 10000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zdc tower : stl
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 14500 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	119521
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We were departing iad for lga. Clearance was runway heading for vectors swann intersection, V214 ood, nancy 2 lga. Takeoff instructions were left turn 350 degree, maintain 4000. Departure gave us a 010 degree heading then 120 degree, climb to and maintain 10,000. Handoff to dca center and cleared to cross eno 271 degree radial eno. At no time was a clearance given or any reference made to swann, V214, or flight plan route. Approximately 20 NM west of eno we requested direct ard and controller responded 'negative ard, proceed on course over dqo'. Next the controller said 'how did you miss the airway?' and gave us a tight left turn. After starting the turn we responded with 'we were cleared direct eno.' the controller then stated 'the previous controller never cleared you direct eno', 'you nearly hit an mlt' to which we responded with a 'mark the tape we'll discuss it later.' in retrospect it looks as if the original clearance to intercept the eno 271 degree radial left off swann. However, the clearance was given direct to eno. Which is also a transition for the nancy 2 arrival so there wasn't any cause for us to question it. In any case both controllers were under a heavy workload and had little time for clarification (and maybe coordination).

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORPORATE JET FLT CREW AND ATC EXPERIENCE AMBIGUITY ABOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: WE WERE DEPARTING IAD FOR LGA. CLRNC WAS RWY HDG FOR VECTORS SWANN INTXN, V214 OOD, NANCY 2 LGA. TKOF INSTRUCTIONS WERE LEFT TURN 350 DEG, MAINTAIN 4000. DEP GAVE US A 010 DEG HDG THEN 120 DEG, CLIMB TO AND MAINTAIN 10,000. HANDOFF TO DCA CENTER AND CLRED TO CROSS ENO 271 DEG RADIAL ENO. AT NO TIME WAS A CLRNC GIVEN OR ANY REFERENCE MADE TO SWANN, V214, OR FLT PLAN ROUTE. APPROX 20 NM W OF ENO WE REQUESTED DIRECT ARD AND CTLR RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE ARD, PROCEED ON COURSE OVER DQO'. NEXT THE CTLR SAID 'HOW DID YOU MISS THE AIRWAY?' AND GAVE US A TIGHT LEFT TURN. AFTER STARTING THE TURN WE RESPONDED WITH 'WE WERE CLRED DIRECT ENO.' THE CTLR THEN STATED 'THE PREVIOUS CTLR NEVER CLRED YOU DIRECT ENO', 'YOU NEARLY HIT AN MLT' TO WHICH WE RESPONDED WITH A 'MARK THE TAPE WE'LL DISCUSS IT LATER.' IN RETROSPECT IT LOOKS AS IF THE ORIGINAL CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE ENO 271 DEG RADIAL LEFT OFF SWANN. HOWEVER, THE CLRNC WAS GIVEN DIRECT TO ENO. WHICH IS ALSO A TRANSITION FOR THE NANCY 2 ARRIVAL SO THERE WASN'T ANY CAUSE FOR US TO QUESTION IT. IN ANY CASE BOTH CTLRS WERE UNDER A HEAVY WORKLOAD AND HAD LITTLE TIME FOR CLARIFICATION (AND MAYBE COORD).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.