B767 CREW FLEW THE WRONG RTE AFTER THE COMPANY FILED A REVISED FLT PLAN WITHOUT ADVISING THE CREW.

Narrative

FLT PLAN FORECAST RELEASE 01 RTE WAS: ORD.MZV.J18.ALBERT.SLN.J18.GCK.J110.ALS.PGS.J64.CIVET.CIVET4. PDC DEP CLRNC FILED RTE WAS: ORD MZV J18 ALBERT./.LAX. REVISED SEGMENT WAS: NONE. ENRTE OVER GCN; I TURNED ONTO J110 TO ALS WHEREUPON THE CTLR ASKED WHERE WE WERE GOING. AFTER THE FO REPLIED; THE CTLR SAID THAT HIS INFO SHOWED US ON A DIFFERENT RTE THAT WOULD TAKE US TO THE TNP.PDZ4; BUT THAT HE WOULD CHANGE THIS TO AGREE WITH OUR STATED RTE. WE QUERIED OUR DISPATCHER WHO REPLIED IT SEEMS THAT A SECOND FLT PLAN WAS DRIVEN TO INCREASE YOUR ALT; AND WHEN IT DID; SKYPATH PROGRAMMING SLIGHTLY REVISED YOUR RTE. ASIDE FROM THE OBVIOUS PROB OF 2 DIFFERENT RTES BEING GENERATED UNDER THE RUBIC RLS 01; I THINK THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE PDC THAT IS SENT OVER THE ACARS. UNLIKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH CLRNC DELIVERY; THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE VERBAL SHORTHAND CLRED AS FILED (./.) AS PART OF THE FILED RTE. INSTEAD; THE ENTIRE RTE SHOULD BE ON THE PDC PRINTOUT. THIS WOULD GIVE THE CREW A CHANCE TO CATCH EITHER AN UNKNOWN RTE CHANGE SUCH AS OURS; OR AN ENTRY ERROR OF THE CORRECT RTE (IN THE FMC). IMPROVEMENT IN THE PDC SYS MIGHT ALSO REDUCE OCCASIONS WHEN THE CREW MUST CALL FOR A FULL RTE CLRNC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 517891: WHILE IN CRUISE; ZKC ASKED WHAT FIX WE WERE PROCEEDING TO. WE WERE ON OUR FILED FLT PLAN; BUT ATC HAD A DIFFERENT ROUTING. WE QUERIED DISPATCH; ONLY TO LEARN WE HAD A SECOND FLT PLAN THAT WAS DRIVEN TO INCREASE THE ALT. THE COMPANY PRODUCED A DIFFERENT RTE. DISPATCH SAID IT WOULD CHK WITH PROGRAMMERS TO SEE WHY A DIFFERENT FLT PLAN WAS FILED. I ALSO VERIFIED ACARS AND PAPERWORK DATA TO MATCH FLT. ALTHOUGH WE WERE ON OUR CORRECT RTE; AND THERE WASN'T A CONFLICT OR LOSS OF SEPARATION; THE POTENTIAL DID EXIST.