Some confusion over airways clearance.

Attributes
ACN	295150
Time
Date	199502
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : slc
State Reference	UT
Altitude	msl bound lower : 10000 msl bound upper : 28000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zlc tracon : slc tower : mia
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors enroute airway : zlc
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	295150
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Intra Facility Coordination Failure Pilot Deviation Inter Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

During climb out, we received a series of headings for traffic from slc departure control. The last clearance was turn to '250 degrees, contact ZLC.' the center controller gave us 'direct bvl' which we did, that only required a 5 degree or 10 degree heading change. While flying to bvl, in retrospect, I likely did a poor job of trying to get a change of routing with a request for our filed flight plan (J56 MVA) instead of just requesting 'direct MVA.' we were cleared direct MVA and made that course change. That controller asked about our clearance from departure control. We told him what it was, as he seemed to think that we had been cleared 'on course' by departure control -- we were not. Also, in a following question from him, I think I responded incorrectly when he asked about our 'clearance.' I was still trying to pass our requested route. After a handoff, the second center controller passed a message to us that we had turned incorrectly away from our cleared route. We doubt that all turns we made were in direct response to verbal assignment by these (in particular the first 2) controllers. I don't think there was any deviation from any clearance, but there was confusing communication that seemed to include the controllers between themselves, too. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporting first officer had never met the captain before this incident. His unfamiliarity with the captain had no bearing on the incident. The report was written to highlight that there can be communication problems within the TRACON departure controllers and ARTCC controllers. The communication problem seems to have been that the controller was talking about the airways clearance that the reporter had received through ACARS on the ground and the reporter was talking about the latest amended clearance received while airborne. There had been several minor changes in routing after departure. There were no conflicts and only the minimum amount of hate and discontent. The first officer flies the B-737-300 for a major united states air carrier on domestic rtes.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SOME CONFUSION OVER AIRWAYS CLRNC.

Narrative: DURING CLBOUT, WE RECEIVED A SERIES OF HDGS FOR TFC FROM SLC DEP CTL. THE LAST CLRNC WAS TURN TO '250 DEGS, CONTACT ZLC.' THE CTR CTLR GAVE US 'DIRECT BVL' WHICH WE DID, THAT ONLY REQUIRED A 5 DEG OR 10 DEG HDG CHANGE. WHILE FLYING TO BVL, IN RETROSPECT, I LIKELY DID A POOR JOB OF TRYING TO GET A CHANGE OF ROUTING WITH A REQUEST FOR OUR FILED FLT PLAN (J56 MVA) INSTEAD OF JUST REQUESTING 'DIRECT MVA.' WE WERE CLRED DIRECT MVA AND MADE THAT COURSE CHANGE. THAT CTLR ASKED ABOUT OUR CLRNC FROM DEP CTL. WE TOLD HIM WHAT IT WAS, AS HE SEEMED TO THINK THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED 'ON COURSE' BY DEP CTL -- WE WERE NOT. ALSO, IN A FOLLOWING QUESTION FROM HIM, I THINK I RESPONDED INCORRECTLY WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT OUR 'CLRNC.' I WAS STILL TRYING TO PASS OUR REQUESTED RTE. AFTER A HDOF, THE SECOND CTR CTLR PASSED A MESSAGE TO US THAT WE HAD TURNED INCORRECTLY AWAY FROM OUR CLRED RTE. WE DOUBT THAT ALL TURNS WE MADE WERE IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO VERBAL ASSIGNMENT BY THESE (IN PARTICULAR THE FIRST 2) CTLRS. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY DEV FROM ANY CLRNC, BUT THERE WAS CONFUSING COM THAT SEEMED TO INCLUDE THE CTLRS BTWN THEMSELVES, TOO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTING FO HAD NEVER MET THE CAPT BEFORE THIS INCIDENT. HIS UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE CAPT HAD NO BEARING ON THE INCIDENT. THE RPT WAS WRITTEN TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE CAN BE COM PROBS WITHIN THE TRACON DEP CTLRS AND ARTCC CTLRS. THE COM PROB SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THAT THE CTLR WAS TALKING ABOUT THE AIRWAYS CLRNC THAT THE RPTR HAD RECEIVED THROUGH ACARS ON THE GND AND THE RPTR WAS TALKING ABOUT THE LATEST AMENDED CLRNC RECEIVED WHILE AIRBORNE. THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL MINOR CHANGES IN ROUTING AFTER DEP. THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS AND ONLY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF HATE AND DISCONTENT. THE FO FLIES THE B-737-300 FOR A MAJOR UNITED STATES ACR ON DOMESTIC RTES.

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