ACR FLC WAS MISLED BY COMPANY'S CONFUSING FILED ROUTING CLRNC.

Narrative

WE WERE NAVING J220; APPROX 65 MI N OF AML VOR; ZNY ASSIGNED US 20 DEGS R FOR THE CLB. (THAT PUT US ON ABOUT A 30 DEG HDG.) ABOUT 5 MINS LATER; WE WERE ASSIGNED A 330 DEG HDG TO REINTERCEPT J220. WHEN WE ROLLED OUT ON 330 DEG HDG; THE RADIAL CAME ALIVE VERY QUICKLY SO FO BEGAN A TURN TO THE NE TO REINTERCEPT. THE CAPT BELIEVED THAT AT MICAH INTXN WE WERE ALMOST ON THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL AND INSTRUCTED FO TO FLY 340 DEGS TO TRACK BUF 162 DEGS. NYC AT THAT TIME INFORMED US THAT WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH J220. CAPT STATED (INCORRECTLY) THAT AFTER MICAH OUR CLRNC WAS DIRECT BUF. CLRNC WAS THEN GIVEN DIRECT BUF. NO TFC CONFLICT WAS INVOLVED. THE TYPED CLRNC 'J220 MICAH J220 BUF 162' IS CONFUSING; SHOULD READ 'J220...BUF 162.' ALSO WITH 2 60-DEG TURNS WITHIN 3-5 MINS TO TRACK A RADIAL; IT IS VERY EASY TO GET OFF COURSE! SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 307729: WE WERE NEARING MICAH INTXN. MICAH; FOR SOME REASON; WAS DISTINGUISHED ON OUR FLT PLAN. I THOUGHT THAT OUR CLRNC AFTER MICAH WAS DIRECT BUF ON THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL. I ATTRIBUTE THAT TO NOT-AT-THE-MOMENT REVIEWING THE PRINTED ROUTING; BUT LOOKING FOR A MAGNETIC COURSE FROM THE 'GUTS' OF THE COMPUTER FLT PLAN IN CASE BUF VOR WAS NOT YET RECEIVABLE. ZNY CTLR SAID THAT WE HAD OVERSHOT J220. I SAID THAT WE HAD REACHED MICAH INTXN AND WERE PROCEEDING DIRECT BUF. HE SAID THAT HE SHOWED OUR ROUTING AS J220 TO INTERCEPT THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL TO BUF. NO TFC CONFLICT WAS NOTED OR MENTIONED EITHER AT THAT TIME; NOR DURING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE CTR LATER IN THE DAY. '...J220 BUF 162 DEG RADIAL...' WOULD HAVE HAD NO EXTRANEOUS INFO. THE POINT AT WHICH THE BUF 162 DEG RADIAL INTERCEPTS J220 IS NOT A NAMED OR DEPICTED INTXN. THIS WAS THE 4TH DUTY DAY (3RD DAY OF THE TRIP) FOR THE FO AND ME. MINOR CUMULATIVE FATIGUE AND/OR COMPLACENCY COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE LESS THAN THOROUGH REVIEW BY BOTH CREW MEMBERS.