FLC HAD A TRACK DEV IN EGTT CLASS B AFTER THE CREW BEGAN FLYING THE WRONG SID.

Narrative

THE FO FOR THE TRIP IS ALSO THE COMPANY CHIEF PLT. APPROX 1 YR AGO; THE COMPANY I HAD WORKED FOR MERGED WITH FO'S COMPANY. DUE TO THE DIVERSITY OF THE FLEET AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER; FO HAD ONLY RECENTLY BECOME QUALIFIED IN THE ACFT WE WERE FLYING ON THIS TRIP. SINCE I WAS MORE EXPERIENCED IN THE ACFT AND MORE EXPERIENCED IN INTL OPS; I WAS DESIGNATED AS PIC FOR THE TRIP. I HAD ONLY FLOWN 1 DOMESTIC TRIP WITH FO PRIOR TO THIS TRIP. THIS TRIP WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FO TO EVALUATE ME ON AN INTL FLT. THE FLT PLAN FOR THE LEG FROM LONDON LUTON (EGGW) TO PARIS LE BOURGET (LFPB) HAD BEEN PREFILED BY OUR FLT PLANNING SVC. THE FILED FIRST FIX WAS DETLING (DET). I BRIEFED FO ON THE DEP PROC THAT I BELIEVED WE WOULD RECEIVE BASED ON THE FILED ENRTE FIX. THE DEP THAT I BRIEFED WAS THE DETLING 4C. I ALSO DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING CLRED FOR THE COMPTON 4C DEP; BUT I DECIDED TO LOAD THE DETLING 4C DEP INTO THE FMS. AS WE WERE CLRED ONTO THE RWY TO LINE UP AND WAIT; THE LCL CTLR ISSUED OUR ATC CLRNC. SINCE I WAS TAXIING THE ACFT; MY ATTN WAS NOT COMPLETELY FOCUSED ON LISTENING TO THE CLRNC. AS FO WAS COPYING THE CLRNC; I HEARD THE CTLR SAY '4 CHARLIE;' BUT I DID NOT DISTINCTLY HEAR THE PROC NAME. FO READ BACK THE CLRNC AS 'CLRED FOR THE 4 CHARLIE DEP;' BUT DID NOT INCLUDE THE PROC NAME. AT THIS TIME; I WAS KEYED IN ON THE DETLING 4C DEP. AFTER TKOF; WE CONTACTED LONDON CTL AND FLEW THE DETLING 4C PROC AS PROGRAMMED IN THE FMS. WHEN WE MADE A TURN TO THE SE; LONDON CTL ASKED US TO RPT OUR HDG. WHEN WE DID; HE INSTRUCTED US TO MAKE A R TURN TO HDG 270 DEGS. WHILE IN THE TURN; HE ASKED US TO CONFIRM THAT WE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED THE COMPTON DEP. FO THEN LOOKED DOWN AT THE CLRNC HE HAD WRITTEN. HE HAD WRITTEN 'COMPTON 4C.' LOOKING BACK ON WHAT HAPPENED; I REALIZE THAT I SET THE TRAP FOR MYSELF; AND THEN STUCK MY HEAD INTO THE NOOSE. I CONVINCED MYSELF THAT WE WERE CERTAIN TO GET THE DETLING DEP. EVEN THOUGH THE CLRNC WAS NOT TO BE ISSUED UNTIL WE WERE TAXIING; I COULD HAVE ASKED THE GND CTLR WHICH DEPS WERE IN USE AT THE TIME SO AS TO BE MORE IN TUNE WITH THE FLOW. I HEARD '4 CHARLIE;' AND ASSUMED THAT IT MUST BE THE DETLING 4C. FO WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH NON UNITED STATES ATC PROCS; BUT I ASSUMED HE HAD HEARD AND READ BACK THE CLRNC ACCURATELY. I SHOULD HAVE INSISTED THAT WE CONFIRM THE ATC CLRNC PRIOR TO TKOF. IN THE FUTURE; I WILL MAKE IT A HABIT THAT BOTH PLTS LISTEN TO THE CLRNC TOGETHER; CONFIRM IT WITH EACH OTHER AND THEN WITH THE CTLR. ALSO; I WILL NOT ALLOW MY DESIRE TO IMPRESS MY SUPVR GET IN THE WAY OF GOOD COM AND COCKPIT PROC. PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IF IT IS PRUDENT TO HAVE IDENTICAL SUFFIX CODES ON DIFFERENT NAMED PROCS. FOR EXAMPLE; IF THE DETLING DEP HAD SUFFIXES 4B; 4C; ETC; AND THE COMPTON SUFFIXES WERE 5B; 5C; ETC; IT MIGHT ADD 1 MORE CLUE THAT COULD PREVENT A SIMILAR MISHAP.