HDG TRACK DEV OCCURS AFTER THE PIC OF A CPR FA20 ACCEPTS A REVISED RTE CLRNC; INPUTTING THE FO'S SUGGESTION OF LVS; NM; INTO THE VMC VERSUS LAS; NV.

Narrative

ON CLBOUT FROM A DEP FROM THE ONT ARPT; WE WERE VECTORED OFF THE ASSIGNED PUBLISHED DEP; FOR AN UNDISCLOSED REASON. AFTER FLYING THE ASSIGNED HDG FOR APPROX 5 MINS; WE WERE CLRED DIRECT A FIX NOT ON OUR FILED RTE. THE UNFILED FIX WE WERE THEN DIRECTED TO WAS THE LAS VEGAS VOR. I ASKED THE FO WHAT THE 3 LETTER IDENT FOR THE FIX WAS; AND HE REPLIED THAT IT WAS LVS. I REMEMBER THE CTLR SAYING LAS VEGAS; NV; AND ASKED THE FO TO VERIFY THE 3 LETTER IDENT; AND HE AGAIN REPLIED IT WAS LVS. I ENTERED THE IDENT IN THE FMS AND THE FMS SAID LAS VEGAS. I THEN PRESSED 'ACCEPT.' THE COMMAND BARS COMMANDED A SLIGHT R TURN FROM OUR PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED VECTOR WHICH APPEARED TO CORRESPOND TO DIRECTION OF FLT FOR OUR INTENDED DEST. WITH THESE CONTEXT CLUES ALL ADDING UP; I DID NOT SUSPECT OR PERCEIVE ANY PROB. A FEW MINS LATER; THE CTLR REQUESTED AN APPROX 50 DEG L TURN; TO WHICH I COMPLIED. THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE PROCEEDING DIRECT DAGGETT VOR (PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED DEP PROC RTE). THE FO REPLIED; 'NEGATIVE; WE WERE CLRED DIRECT LAS VEGAS.' THE CTLR RESPONDED; 'YOU MUST HAVE BEEN PROCEEDING DIRECT LAS VEGAS; NM.' TO WHICH THE STARTLED FO REPLIED; 'WE WERE PROCEEDING DIRECT LVS AS REQUESTED.' THE CTLR SAID THEN; 'PLEASE FLY DIRECT L-A-S; LAS VEGAS; NV' TO WHICH THE FO REPLIED 'DIRECT L-A-S; LAS VEGAS; NV.' THE FO THEN REMARKED TO THE CTLR; 'I THOUGHT YOU HAD CLRED US DIRECT LVS' AND APOLOGIZED FOR THE CONFUSION. THE CTLR THEN SAID 'IT WAS LAS VEGAS; NV...JUST BE A LITTLE MORE CAREFUL NEXT TIME.' THE TONE OF COM WAS CONCILIATORY BY BOTH PARTIES. PROCEDURAL FACTORS THAT LED TO THIS DYSFUNCTION: THERE ARE 2 HIGH ALT VORS NAMED 'LAS VEGAS.' THE CTLR DID NOT ISSUE THE 'L-A-S' 3 LETTER IDENT; AND THE FO DID NOT READ BACK A 3 LETTER IDENT TO VERIFY THE ASSIGNED FIX. HUMAN FACTORS THAT LED TO THIS DYSFUNCTION: I WAS HAND FLYING THE ACFT AND WAS UNABLE TO VERIFY THE 3 LETTER IDENT THE FO SUPPLIED ME WITH ON THE ENRTE CHART. OVER DEPENDENCE ON THE AUTOMATION OF THE FMS CAUSED A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. THE FO AND I THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THE SCENARIO AT ALT DURING THE REMAINDER OF OUR TRIP TO OUR DEST. WE DISCUSSED THE FACTORS THAT LED TO THIS SCENARIO; AND FEEL CONFIDENT A SIT SUCH AS THIS WILL CERTAINLY NOT HAPPEN TO US AGAIN. WHILE WE FEEL CONFIDENT THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN TO US AGAIN; I BELIEVE THAT HAVING 2 HIGH ALT VOR'S WITH THE SAME NAME CREATES AN UNNECESSARY POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE PROBS FOR OTHER FLC'S. HUMAN FACTORS PLAYED IN ON BOTH OUR PART AND THE CTLR'S PART FOR THIS DYSFUNCTION TO HAVE OCCURRED -- THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. BUT HAD THERE NOT BEEN 2 VOR'S WITH THE SAME NAME; THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE FAA WOULD CONSIDER RENAMING ONE OF THOSE VOR'S.