B747-400 FLT CREW FAILS TO NOTE DEP CLRNC WAS MOLEN SID TO MOLEN INTERSECTION; THENCE DIRECT TO BOXER. FILED ROUTE WAS VIA MOLEN; ENI; BOXER.

Narrative

ON CLBOUT ON THE MOLEN 3 DEP; OUR PDC HAD A REVISED SEGMENT MOLEN (DIRECT) BOXER. OUR ORIGINAL RTE; AS LOADED UPON INITIALIZATION AND ON THE FILED FLT PLAN WAS MOLEN ENI BOXER. WE WERE FLYING THE ORIGINAL ROUTING. ZOA QUERIED US ABOUT OUR NEXT WAYPOINT AND MENTIONED WE SHOULD BE GOING DIRECT TO BOXER AFTER MOLEN. THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT AND NO FURTHER REQUESTS; ACTIONS OR COMMENTS BY ZOA. FOR MANY YRS; SFO HAS INCLUDED A REVISED SEGMENT ON THEIR PDC WHICH IS NOT A RTE CHANGE; BUT ONLY A CLRNC LIMIT FIX. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME THIS ROUTING IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS OUR REQUESTED ROUTING AND OUR FLT PLAN ROUTING. THE USE OF THIS PDC REVISED SEGMENT FEATURE TO DENOTE A CLRNC LIMIT FIX IS DESENSITIZING PLTS INTO LOOKING AT IT AS THE SAME RTE; AS IN THIS CASE WHEN THE CHANGE IS VERY SUBTLE LIKE LEAVING OFF ONE WAYPOINT. I RECOMMEND THAT ON PDC'S IN THE FUTURE; IF SFO OR OTHER ARPTS NEED TO DENOTE A CLRNC LIMIT FIX; THEY CREATE A NEW BLOCK ON THE PDC FOR JUST THIS PURPOSE. A REVISED SEGMENT SHOULD BE JUST THAT: A REVISED SEGMENT. A CLRNC LIMIT FIX IS NOT A REVISED SEGMENT IN THE OPINION OF EVERY PLT I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH. THIS WAS; IN MY PERSONAL OPINION; A SET-UP THAT HAS BEEN LIKELY TO OCCUR FOR A LONG TIME. THE RESULTS OF OUR SITUATION REQUIRED MINIMAL CTLING FROM ZOA AND NO FURTHER ACTION. NO VIOLATION. THIS COULD BE MORE SIGNIFICANT IN A HVY TFC SITUATION; WHERE ZOA IS EXPECTING A FLT TO CONTINUE ON A RTE AND IT DOESN'T. A SERIOUS TFC CONFLICT COULD OCCUR. FOUR HIGHLY EXPERIENCED INTL FO'S WITH CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE AT SFO MISSED THIS RTE CHANGE. OUR COCKPIT DUTIES WEREN'T RUSHED. OUR WORKLOAD WAS RELATIVELY NORMAL. WE WERE STARTING OUR FLT AFTER ADEQUATE REST. THE RELIEF PLTS REVIEWED THE PDC AS WELL; AND MISSED THE CHANGE. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE REVISED SEGMENT BLOCK ON PDC IS USED NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO AVOID THIS PROB IN THE FUTURE.