Narrative:

I believe the incident herein described was resolved 'internally' by ATC, however, it raises a very interesting (read potentially dangerous) question I will ask shortly. My student and I filed IFR from frg to N03, both in ny state. Our IFR clearance was as follows: farmingdale 2 departure to haays intersection (we were RNAV capable) vectors V374 binghamton VOR, direct N03. Everything went rather smoothly until we were told to go to sax, intercept V249 and resume own navigation. Upon checking the chart, we saw that this would require two 90 degree doglegs, interesting but not uncommon. We intercepted V249 (029 degree radial) northeast of sparta and proceeded to V374. 8 mi northeast a very upset ZNY controller asked us 'where were we going? And now that you are in ZBW airspace, you had better call them!' shortly thereafter, another controller came on (supervisor?) and demanded to know our clearance, which we gave him. After a min or so, we were cleared direct to binghamton without further incident. Why all the fuss? The ZNY controller had this as our route: sparta, V249 to solberg, V6 allentown, V613 wilkes barre, V29 binghamton, direct. The question is: how did ATC have this route for us which was totally different than the route we were cleared to fly? We did not even file a route that was remotely like this one! Our only thought was that ATC had intended to amend our route, yet a controller forgot to issue us the new route, however, it was sent to the next controller (who may have been our ZNY controller). We don't know! I mentioned earlier that I believe this problem happened within ATC, and was resolved within ATC, as evidenced by our being cleared direct to destination without any further communication, discussion or incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACK DEV. FLC ATC MISCOM IN ROUTING.

Narrative: I BELIEVE THE INCIDENT HEREIN DESCRIBED WAS RESOLVED 'INTERNALLY' BY ATC, HOWEVER, IT RAISES A VERY INTERESTING (READ POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS) QUESTION I WILL ASK SHORTLY. MY STUDENT AND I FILED IFR FROM FRG TO N03, BOTH IN NY STATE. OUR IFR CLRNC WAS AS FOLLOWS: FARMINGDALE 2 DEP TO HAAYS INTXN (WE WERE RNAV CAPABLE) VECTORS V374 BINGHAMTON VOR, DIRECT N03. EVERYTHING WENT RATHER SMOOTHLY UNTIL WE WERE TOLD TO GO TO SAX, INTERCEPT V249 AND RESUME OWN NAV. UPON CHKING THE CHART, WE SAW THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE TWO 90 DEG DOGLEGS, INTERESTING BUT NOT UNCOMMON. WE INTERCEPTED V249 (029 DEG RADIAL) NE OF SPARTA AND PROCEEDED TO V374. 8 MI NE A VERY UPSET ZNY CTLR ASKED US 'WHERE WERE WE GOING? AND NOW THAT YOU ARE IN ZBW AIRSPACE, YOU HAD BETTER CALL THEM!' SHORTLY THEREAFTER, ANOTHER CTLR CAME ON (SUPVR?) AND DEMANDED TO KNOW OUR CLRNC, WHICH WE GAVE HIM. AFTER A MIN OR SO, WE WERE CLRED DIRECT TO BINGHAMTON WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. WHY ALL THE FUSS? THE ZNY CTLR HAD THIS AS OUR RTE: SPARTA, V249 TO SOLBERG, V6 ALLENTOWN, V613 WILKES BARRE, V29 BINGHAMTON, DIRECT. THE QUESTION IS: HOW DID ATC HAVE THIS RTE FOR US WHICH WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE RTE WE WERE CLRED TO FLY? WE DID NOT EVEN FILE A RTE THAT WAS REMOTELY LIKE THIS ONE! OUR ONLY THOUGHT WAS THAT ATC HAD INTENDED TO AMEND OUR RTE, YET A CTLR FORGOT TO ISSUE US THE NEW RTE, HOWEVER, IT WAS SENT TO THE NEXT CTLR (WHO MAY HAVE BEEN OUR ZNY CTLR). WE DON'T KNOW! I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I BELIEVE THIS PROB HAPPENED WITHIN ATC, AND WAS RESOLVED WITHIN ATC, AS EVIDENCED BY OUR BEING CLRED DIRECT TO DEST WITHOUT ANY FURTHER COM, DISCUSSION OR INCIDENT.

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.