Narrative:

Flight papers arrived with a note about a change to the route. After a short discussion, we compared the ACARS uplinked route to the route on the flight plan. However, during this discussion, we were distraction with a weight and balance issue that took our attention away from comparing the rtes previously discussed to the route on the ICAO flight plan form. As we taxied out for takeoff, we called for and received our IFR clearance from lms (san pedro sula, honduras) to houston, tx. This is standard practice in this part of the country. They cleared us 'as filed' and the first officer read back the whole clearance including the 'route' we had on our flight plan and in our computer. The controller never questioned the first officer's readback. After our takeoff, we were cleared to join the airway on course. A few mins into the flight, the departure controller questioned our heading/course, and we advised him that we were established on the 347 degree radial of lms. The controller turned us to a different heading and asked us about our route. We again advised him of our route that we thought we were cleared on. We discovered after further review that there was a different departure segment on the ICAO flight plan that conflicted with the ACARS up linked route, as well as the flight plan route. From this point on, the controller just gave us a clearance back onto our original route and there was no further discussion. As a crew, we should have paid more attention to the comparison of all rtes, and we could have avoided a lot of confusion by requesting a full clearance readback. Pre departure clearance's are very common in the united states, however, not in other countries. We also let weight and balance issues interrupt the task at hand, and we should have been paying a little more attention to the route conflict.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACK DEV DEPARTING LA MESA, HONDURAS, WHEN FMS RTE DOES NOT MATCH ICAO CLRED RTE. THE FULL READBACK OF THE FMS LOADED RTE, WHICH WAS IN ERROR, WAS NOT CAUGHT BY CLRNC DELIVERY.

Narrative: FLT PAPERS ARRIVED WITH A NOTE ABOUT A CHANGE TO THE RTE. AFTER A SHORT DISCUSSION, WE COMPARED THE ACARS UPLINKED RTE TO THE RTE ON THE FLT PLAN. HOWEVER, DURING THIS DISCUSSION, WE WERE DISTR WITH A WT AND BAL ISSUE THAT TOOK OUR ATTN AWAY FROM COMPARING THE RTES PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED TO THE RTE ON THE ICAO FLT PLAN FORM. AS WE TAXIED OUT FOR TKOF, WE CALLED FOR AND RECEIVED OUR IFR CLRNC FROM LMS (SAN PEDRO SULA, HONDURAS) TO HOUSTON, TX. THIS IS STANDARD PRACTICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY. THEY CLRED US 'AS FILED' AND THE FO READ BACK THE WHOLE CLRNC INCLUDING THE 'RTE' WE HAD ON OUR FLT PLAN AND IN OUR COMPUTER. THE CTLR NEVER QUESTIONED THE FO'S READBACK. AFTER OUR TKOF, WE WERE CLRED TO JOIN THE AIRWAY ON COURSE. A FEW MINS INTO THE FLT, THE DEP CTLR QUESTIONED OUR HDG/COURSE, AND WE ADVISED HIM THAT WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON THE 347 DEG RADIAL OF LMS. THE CTLR TURNED US TO A DIFFERENT HDG AND ASKED US ABOUT OUR RTE. WE AGAIN ADVISED HIM OF OUR RTE THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE CLRED ON. WE DISCOVERED AFTER FURTHER REVIEW THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENT DEP SEGMENT ON THE ICAO FLT PLAN THAT CONFLICTED WITH THE ACARS UP LINKED RTE, AS WELL AS THE FLT PLAN RTE. FROM THIS POINT ON, THE CTLR JUST GAVE US A CLRNC BACK ONTO OUR ORIGINAL RTE AND THERE WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. AS A CREW, WE SHOULD HAVE PAID MORE ATTN TO THE COMPARISON OF ALL RTES, AND WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED A LOT OF CONFUSION BY REQUESTING A FULL CLRNC READBACK. PDC'S ARE VERY COMMON IN THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, NOT IN OTHER COUNTRIES. WE ALSO LET WT AND BAL ISSUES INTERRUPT THE TASK AT HAND, AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING A LITTLE MORE ATTN TO THE RTE CONFLICT.

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.