T-6A CREW DID NOT FLY THE CLRNC GIVEN THEM BY ATC IN ATLANTIC CLASS 2 NAV AIRSPACE.

Narrative

ON AN INTERNATIONAL DELIVERY FLT FROM THE UNITED STATES WE FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN AT SONDRESTROM; GREENLAND (BGSF) WHICH SHOWED ROUTING AS: SF DIRECT 66N - 040W DIRECT 65N - 030W DIRECT GIMLI DIRECT RK AT FL330 ENRTE TO REYKJAVIK; ICELAND (BIRK). AFTER GETTING INTO THE ACFT AND REQUESTING OUR START UP CLRNC; WE WERE ISSUED THE IFR CLRNC WHICH READ: CLRED TO REYKJAVIK VIA DIRECT 65N - 040W DIRECT 65N - 030W DIRECT GIMLI DIRECT RK AT FL290. THE PNF READ BACK THE CLRNC AS GIVEN AND THEN DISCUSSED THE ANOMALY IN THE CLRNC WITH THE PF AND THE CREW DECIDED TO CLARIFY THE DISCREPANCY IN THE AIR. AFTER DEPARTING FROM BGSF; WE PROCEEDED AS PER OUR FILED FLT PLAN; BELIEVING THAT OUR FILED FLT PLAN HAD BEEN THE VICTIM OF A SIMPLE KEYSTROKE ERROR AS OUR FILED FLT PLAN IS ACTUALLY THE PREFERRED ROUTING BETWEEN BGSF AND BIRK AT OUR FLT LEVEL AND IS ALSO THE ROUTING THAT WE HAVE FILED AND RECEIVED ON 17 OTHER OCCASIONS. UPON INITIAL CONTACT WITH REYKJAVIK OCEANIC CTL; THE PNF CHECKED IN WITH THE FOLLOWING REPORT: WE ARE 40 NM E OF SONDRESTROM AT FL290; ESTIMATING 66N - 040W AT XA22Z; ESTIMATING 65N - 030W AT XB08Z; GIMLI NEXT. THE RADIO OPERATOR FOR REYKJAVIK OCEANIC CTL READ BACK THIS POS RPT VERBATIM AND THE PNF DISCUSSED WITH THE CTLR THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED TO 65N - 040W AND THAT WE HAD FILED FOR 66N - 040W AND THAT WAS THE WAYPOINT THAT WE WERE PROCEEDING TO. THE CTLR SIMPLY REPLIED TO RPT 040W AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE CORRESPONDING NORTH COORDINATE. WE CONTINUED TO OUR FILED WAYPOINT OF 66N - 040W ASSUMING THAT SINCE WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING CONTRADICTORY FROM REYKJAVIK WE WERE IN FACT PROCEEDING TO THE PROPER WAYPOINT. AT XA22Z; THE PNF MADE THE POS RPT AT 66N - 040W ALONG WITH THE ESTIMATE FOR THE NEXT POS AND THE FOLLOWING WAYPOINT TO WHICH THE CTLR REPLIED BY READING THE SAME RPT BACK TO US. THE FLT PROCEEDED TO THE SUBSEQUENT WAYPOINT AND AT XA26Z REYKJAVIK OCEANIC CTL CALLED TO VERIFY OUR POS RPT AND TO INQUIRE AS TO THE CLRNC WE HAD RECEIVED FROM SONDRESTROM APCH. WE RESPONDED WITH THE CLRNC THAT WAS READ TO US BY SONDRESTROM APCH AND REITERATED THAT WE HAD TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE HAD FILED TO 66N - 040W. WE THEN FLEW ONTO 65N - 030W AND MADE OUR POS RPT. SHORTLY AFTER CONFIRMING OUR POS RPT; REYKJAVIK OCEANIC CTL ADVISED US THAT A RPT WOULD BE FILED ON OUR NAV ERROR OVER 65N - 040W. WE REPLIED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE NATURE OF THE RPT WAS AND THEY STATED THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED TO 65N - 040W AND WE HAD FLOWN TO 66N - 040W. WE THEN ASKED IF WE COULD HAVE A TELEPHONE NUMBER TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE IMPENDING RPT. AFTER CONVERSING WITH THE REYKJAVIK CTLRS VIA LANDLINE THE FOLLOWING MORNING; THE PNF SPOKE TO THE ATC MANAGER WHOM STATED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE INFRACTION AND ALSO THAT HIS CTLRS SHARED IN THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INCIDENT AND THAT IT WARRANTED FURTHER INVESTIGATION; INCLUDING REVIEW OF ATC TAPES FROM SONDRESTROM APCH. OUR ASSUMPTION OF A CLRNC THAT WE HAD BEEN ISSUED SEVERAL TIMES PRIOR LULLED US INTO A 'VICTIM OF HABIT' MODE AND THE COM CONFUSION THAT ENSUED CONCERNING THE FILED CLRNC AND ISSUED CLRNC ULTIMATELY LED US TO THE INCORRECT WAYPOINT. TO AVOID THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT FROM RECURRING; IT WILL BE ESSENTIAL THAT A BETTER CLARIFICATION OF CLRNCS BE ESTABLISHED ON THE GND PRIOR TO DEPARTURE.