Narrative:

Departing from wenatchee (eat), an uncontrolled airport below ZSE radar coverage. Flight from eat to sea. As first officer, copied clearance as: cleared to seatac as filed, maintain 14000 ft, report cashs intersection, departure frequency 126.10. However, flight release on dispatch release filed us direct ellensburg (eln), chins intersection, chins.2 arrival. The conflict occurs because center controller cleared us to report 'cashs' intersection which is on V120 (R253) off eat VOR. This is a wbound clearance, contrary to the filed sbound clearance. I brought this to the captain's attention who agreed a conflict is occurring. I asked controller does he want us on V120 wbound. He replied, since an air carrier dash 8 inbound from sea had canceled IFR, V120 was now available. We departed VFR conditions and proceeded on V120 wbound. Since our understanding of the clearance was direct ellensburg we assumed once we hit cashs intersection, we needed to proceed sbound. This didn't make sense. After discussion between my captain and myself, the captain asked center which arrival they are planning for us. Next sector said ephrata 4 arrival. This is contrary to our filed clearance and no amendment was issued. Captain then called previous sector 126.10 to query what just happened. Captain stated filed clearance was sbound but initial clearance was to cashs intersection, west of eat. He asked if he thought we were going west to cashs before turning sbound to eln. He stated there was some confusion on their part because they normally get a clearance for flts direct cashs intersection, ephrata 4 arrival. We have had several problems in this airport with ZSE. This is unacceptable in such an 'accident waiting to happen' airport. Between numerous gliders, high terrain surrounding the airport, air carrier operations throughout the day and night, fire-tanker operations and VFR local traffic. The controllers can ill afford to 'assume' which clearance we are filed versus the actual clearance we were preparing to execute. The controller stated they made a mistake in not reading our clearance before issuing it. The pilot union attorneys are involved and are trying to secure the tapes. It is becoming evident eat airport and surrounding airspace should be given special designation and procedures -- and more scrutinization of ATC. During a recent outage of the eat VOR, a temporary airway and temporary cashs intersection was established. ZSE had issued clrncs for a week until a captain called and pointed out no fdc NOTAMS existed. The controling supervisor discovered they failed to file the fdc NOTAM!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE02 FLC WAS CLRED FROM EAT, WA, TO SEA 'AS FILED...RPT CASHS' THIS WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE FLT PLAN FILED AS THEY WERE NOT TO GO ON THE 253 DEG RADIAL OF EAT VOR BUT VIA THE 185 DEG RADIAL AND THEN CHINS, CHINS 2 ARR SEA. AFTER CASHS THE FLC WAS NOT GIVEN AN AMENDED RTE OR ARR, ATC ASSUMED THAT THE EPH PT EPH4 ARR WOULD BE FLOWN. A PROB WITH PERCEPTION AND ARTCC INTRAFAC COORD. RPTRS ARE CONCERNED WITH POSSIBILITY FOR TFC CONFLICT AND FAILURE TO ISSUE NOTAMS AS REQUIRED.

Narrative: DEPARTING FROM WENATCHEE (EAT), AN UNCTLED ARPT BELOW ZSE RADAR COVERAGE. FLT FROM EAT TO SEA. AS FO, COPIED CLRNC AS: CLRED TO SEATAC AS FILED, MAINTAIN 14000 FT, RPT CASHS INTXN, DEP FREQ 126.10. HOWEVER, FLT RELEASE ON DISPATCH RELEASE FILED US DIRECT ELLENSBURG (ELN), CHINS INTXN, CHINS.2 ARR. THE CONFLICT OCCURS BECAUSE CTR CTLR CLRED US TO RPT 'CASHS' INTXN WHICH IS ON V120 (R253) OFF EAT VOR. THIS IS A WBOUND CLRNC, CONTRARY TO THE FILED SBOUND CLRNC. I BROUGHT THIS TO THE CAPT'S ATTN WHO AGREED A CONFLICT IS OCCURRING. I ASKED CTLR DOES HE WANT US ON V120 WBOUND. HE REPLIED, SINCE AN ACR DASH 8 INBOUND FROM SEA HAD CANCELED IFR, V120 WAS NOW AVAILABLE. WE DEPARTED VFR CONDITIONS AND PROCEEDED ON V120 WBOUND. SINCE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLRNC WAS DIRECT ELLENSBURG WE ASSUMED ONCE WE HIT CASHS INTXN, WE NEEDED TO PROCEED SBOUND. THIS DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. AFTER DISCUSSION BTWN MY CAPT AND MYSELF, THE CAPT ASKED CTR WHICH ARR THEY ARE PLANNING FOR US. NEXT SECTOR SAID EPHRATA 4 ARR. THIS IS CONTRARY TO OUR FILED CLRNC AND NO AMENDMENT WAS ISSUED. CAPT THEN CALLED PREVIOUS SECTOR 126.10 TO QUERY WHAT JUST HAPPENED. CAPT STATED FILED CLRNC WAS SBOUND BUT INITIAL CLRNC WAS TO CASHS INTXN, W OF EAT. HE ASKED IF HE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING W TO CASHS BEFORE TURNING SBOUND TO ELN. HE STATED THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THEIR PART BECAUSE THEY NORMALLY GET A CLRNC FOR FLTS DIRECT CASHS INTXN, EPHRATA 4 ARR. WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL PROBS IN THIS ARPT WITH ZSE. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE IN SUCH AN 'ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN' ARPT. BTWN NUMEROUS GLIDERS, HIGH TERRAIN SURROUNDING THE ARPT, ACR OPS THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND NIGHT, FIRE-TANKER OPS AND VFR LCL TFC. THE CTLRS CAN ILL AFFORD TO 'ASSUME' WHICH CLRNC WE ARE FILED VERSUS THE ACTUAL CLRNC WE WERE PREPARING TO EXECUTE. THE CTLR STATED THEY MADE A MISTAKE IN NOT READING OUR CLRNC BEFORE ISSUING IT. THE PLT UNION ATTORNEYS ARE INVOLVED AND ARE TRYING TO SECURE THE TAPES. IT IS BECOMING EVIDENT EAT ARPT AND SURROUNDING AIRSPACE SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL DESIGNATION AND PROCS -- AND MORE SCRUTINIZATION OF ATC. DURING A RECENT OUTAGE OF THE EAT VOR, A TEMPORARY AIRWAY AND TEMPORARY CASHS INTXN WAS ESTABLISHED. ZSE HAD ISSUED CLRNCS FOR A WK UNTIL A CAPT CALLED AND POINTED OUT NO FDC NOTAMS EXISTED. THE CTLING SUPVR DISCOVERED THEY FAILED TO FILE THE FDC NOTAM!

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.