AN ACR CREW FLEW AN INCORRECT DEP BECAUSE THE ROUTE CHANGE ON THEIR CDU DID NOT FOLLOW THE STANDARD PDC FORMAT INDICATING A CHANGE.

Narrative

PREFLIGHT; START; TAXI AND TAKEOFF WERE NORMAL. OUR FLIGHT DEPARTED ON THE RNAV DEPARTURE AND CONTACTED DEPARTURE. WE ENTERED IMC AT APPROXIMATELY 1100 FT AGL. AFTER INTXN; OUR FLIGHT TURNED TOWARD NEXT INTXN. JUST AS WE WERE ROLLING OUT; DEPARTURE DIRECTED: 'TURN LEFT TO HEADING 130 DEGREES; THERE'S FIGHTER JET ACTIVITY OVER ZZZ1. YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THE ZZZ THREE DEPARTURE.' SHORTLY THEREAFTER; WE WERE ASSIGNED A 190 DEGREE HEADING AND LATER RNAV DIRECT TO DEST. THE REMAINDER OF THE FLIGHT WAS UNEVENTFUL. ONCE ENRTE TO DEST; WE REVIEWED OUR ACARS PDC CLEARANCE AND NOTED THAT ON CDU PAGE ONE; THE TEXT INDICATED THAT WE WERE CLEARED AS FILED. CDU PAGE TWO LINE #1 READ: 'ZZZ THREE DEPARTURE'. MISSING FROM OUR PDC CLEARANCE WAS THE TERMINOLOGY: 'ATTENTION ROUTE CHANGE'; AND THE '-' BEFORE AND AFTER THE NEW ROUTE AND THE NEW ROUTING. ADDITIONALLY; THE ZZZ THREE DEPARTURE; IF PROPERLY ISSUED; WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE ISSUANCE OF AN AMENDED ROUTE UTILIZING CONVENTIONAL NAVAIDS; NOT THE 'Q' ROUTE IN OUR CLEARANCE. THREAT: OUR FLIGHT WAS FLIGHT PLANNED THROUGH AN ACTIVE TFR. THREAT: OUR ACARS PDC CLEARANCE WAS ISSUED IN ERROR. THREAT: IF THE ZZZ THREE DEPARTURE WAS TO BE FLOWN; IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AN AMENDMENT TO OUR ROUTE. THE FLIGHT PLANNED ROUTE WASN'T AMENDED. THREAT: THIS WAS ONLY THE SECOND TIME EITHER THE PF OR PM HAD FLOWN THE RNAV DEPARTURE. THE FIRST TIME WAS EARLIER IN THE DAY; AND NO PROBLEMS WERE EXPERIENCED. ERROR: CLOSER SCRUTINY OF OUR PDC CLEARANCE MAY HAVE DISCOVERED THE ACARS PDC DISCREPANCY; AND ALLOWED US TO RESOLVE IT WITH CLEARANCE DELIVERY. FLIGHT PLANNING SHOULD AVOID TFRS. ADHERENCE TO THE ACR FOM PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE FOR AMENDING FLIGHT PLANNED ROUTING WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS EVENT. CLOSE SCRUTINY OF ACARS PDC CLEARANCES BY FLIGHT DECK CREWS COULD DISCOVER AND TRAP CLEARANCE ERRORS.