TRACK DEVIATION BY ACR LTT RESULTS IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT AIRBORNE.

Narrative

RECEIVED OUR CLRNC FROM SFO CLRNC DELIVERY. IT WAS AS FOLLOWS. CLRED TO ACV; LEFT TURN AFTER DEP 350 DEG STINS AS FILED CLB AND MAINTAIN 3000'; EXPECT FL220 IN 3 MIN; DEP ON 135.1; SQUAWK. OUR AS FILED ROUTE (PER OUR COMPANY PAPERWORK AND LATER CHKED BY OAK CENTER) IS AS FOLLOWS. SFO STINS EN1 V27 FOT ACV. BAY APCH CLBED US ON THE 350 DEG HDG FOR A WHILE; THEN TURNED US TO 290 DEG; THEN TURNED US TO 240 DEG TO INTERCEPT THE SFO 287 DEG R STINS INTXN AS FILED AND CONTACT OAK CENTER. AS WE APCHED STINS; I DOUBLE CHKED MY FILED ROUTE SHEET TO MAKE SURE WE WERE DIRECT ENI AFTER STINS. ABOUT 10 MI LATER; OAK CENTER QUESTIONED OUR ROUTING. I THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING OAK CENTER IF WE WERE TO GO DIRECT ENI AFTER STINS BUT DID NOT BECAUSE THE CLRNC AND FILED ROUTE WAS CLR; ATC OFTEN GETS PERTURBED WHEN ASKED SUCH QUESTIONS (ALTHOUGH THIS HAS NEVER STOPPED ME BEFORE). I HAD THE FEELING THAT STINS DIRECT ENI WAS NOT WHAT OAK CENTER WAS EXPECTING; BUT THE WHOLE ROUTING (ALTHOUGH THE CLRNC WAS NORMAL) WAS STRANGE. WE NEVER INTERCEPT THE SFO 287R OR GET TO STINS; WE ARE ALWAYS VECTORED TO ENI EARLIER. THIS DID CAUSE OAK CENTER TO REROUTE OTHER ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING. CONVERSATION REVEALED THAT IN CONVERSATION WITH ARTCC; THE CENTER WAS EXPECTING THE FLT TO DEPART STINS ON V199 INSTEAD OF DIRECT EMI WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY V27. PF WONDERED WHEN FLT ACTUALLY VECTORED TO STINS IF SOMETHING DIFFERENT WAS EXPECTED AS NORMALLY; ALTHOUGH FILED THAT WAY THEY GET VECTORED DIRECT EMI BEFORE GETTING NEAR STINS. CONFIRMED WAY FLT FLEW WAS WHAT WAS ON FILE IN CENTER BUT WHEN CLRNC ISSUED BY CENTER; IT WAS SUPPOSED TO INDICATE V199. TAPES WERE TO BE CHKED TO SEE WHERE BREAKDOWN WAS IF ERROR WAS CENTER OR SFO CLRNC DELIVERY OR TRACON THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO XMIT THE CHANGE.