Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying at FL390. I; as the pilot monitoring (PM); handed over responsibility of the ATC communications to the Pilot Flying (PF) whilst I listened to destination ATIS in preparation for our arrival at this airport.During the time I was listening to ATIS; ATC and the PF communicated. The PF heard an intersection pronounced as 'kay-ren' and typed into the FMS 'Karen' which is common spelling for such a name. The PF activated this direct to waypoint and the autopilot directed the aircraft in a turn approximately 15 degrees to the left of our course. After listening to ATIS; and resuming responsibilities of communication with ATC; the PF informed me that ATC had given us a present position direct to waypoint 'Karen.' I looked briefly at the map on the MFD and it appeared that ATC vectored us away from the arrival with the direct to 'Karen' and was setting us up to be north of our destination most likely for vectors. This made sense as the airport was in south landing flow and it can only be assumed that ATL was also in this flow.Shortly after turning left towards waypoint Karen; a different ATC operator commanded an urgent 20 degree turn. Shortly after that; the same ATC Operator commanded a max rate descent. I was concerned at the urgency the ATC Operator was commanding us especially since I didn't hear any reason as to why these urgent commands were issued.In response to further ATC commands I expressed my concern and questioned it to ATC but didn't get a response as to why these commands were being given. The ATC Operator then commanded us to fly present position direct to 'Karen' after he had urgently and diligently turned us away from that waypoint. I asked the controller about this and was told that we were never headed to 'Karen' in the first place and that we had deviated from our originally issued course to fix. I then told the ATC Operator that we were issued by the previous controller instructions to fly present position direct to 'Karen' and phonetically spelled the fix to the ATC Operator. The ATC operator then told me that we were issued instructions to fly present position direct to what he phonetically spelled as 'Caran.' Needless to say; I was shocked at identical sounding waypoints although spelled differently being within a 250 nm radius of the airport. I felt awful that we potentially created a safety issue with another aircraft because of this - I was reminded of [a previous] accident in which two NDB's with the same name were a contributing factor in the cause of the accident.In our analysis after the fact we feel that the spelling of the waypoint was at the root of the issue. We neither questioned internally or externally the spelling of a common sounding name for a waypoint. ATC did not offer the spelling of the waypoint either. Assumptions were made on both sides of the equation with no intention of doing anything wrong. As such; we have implemented more of an 'oceanic' approach to reroutes and new waypoints. Instead of the PF entering and executing solely any reroute or direct to waypoint; we will now utilize both the PF and the PM in any flight plan changes. In reroutes; both the PM and the PF will copy the new clearance on paper; confirm with one another; and then proceed to enter the new route into the FMS. The PM will enter the new route; confirm with the PF the correct route has been entered; and then the PF will execute it. In the event of a present position direct to change issued by ATC; the PM will enter the waypoint; both pilots will utilize all liable situational awareness tools to verify and confirm the waypoint; and once both are agreed the PF will execute the change. In the event that one or both pilots questions the new waypoint; the PM will ask ATC for spelling of the waypoint or a radar vector. In the event that the PM is not on the active com (due to listening to ATIS; etc.); the PF will request a vector in lieu of waypoint from ATC. Once the PM has completed his tasks and back on the active com with ATC; the PM will ask ATC for the waypoint that ATC requested the aircraft fly to; and both pilots will then follow the aforementioned steps.We also feel that the FAA should investigate these two waypoints and look into changing the name of one of these. Having two identical sounding waypoints within 250 nm of an airport could lead to confusion by either ATC or flight crews; or both; especially when the waypoint in question is a common name with a common spelling. At the very least; if either/both waypoints' names cannot be changed; ATC should spell phonetically 'Caran' to flight crews - while redundant to flight crews who travel to Atlanta regularly; to crews like ourselves who haven't been to Atlanta in years; it is valuable and preventative situational awareness for both the flight crew (ensures that they go to the right waypoint); and ATC (they're confident the crew understands exactly which waypoint (Karen or Caran) the crew is headed towards.


Second narrative: During the time radios were split; ATC provided instructions to head direct from present position to a waypoint I heard as 'Ka-ren'; followed by a second waypoint; to initiate a descent; and to switch frequencies to the next controller. Both waypoints the controller issued were not part of our original flight plan; nor on the arrival that was part of our original clearance. Despite this; when the controller gave me the new clearance; [the controller] did not offer any spelling of either waypoint when [issuing] them; nor did [the controller] indicate in advance of issuing them that the clearance was amended and that I should advise when ready to copy. I did not hear the second waypoint; and therefore radioed back to ask the controller to spell it. This was then phonetically spelled as 'delta-alpha-lima-alpha-sierra'. I confirmed direct 'Karen' direct 'Dalas'; as well as the altitude and frequency changes provided earlier; and then proceeded to enter 'Karen' into the FMS. The FMS asked if this was a waypoint in the southeastern United States and given our southeastern Lat/Long coordinates at the time; I confirmed it was.The moving map was zoomed in given we were approaching the terminal zone. Given the high workload environment in the cockpit; the scale was left as is when the waypoint was added. This meant the position of waypoint 'Karen' was not visible at the time; but the magenta flight path indicator suggested it was left of our current position and north of the destination airport. Once activated; the aircraft turned approximately 15 degrees left of course to track towards waypoint 'Karen;' and away from the arrival that we had previously been cleared for. The pilot monitoring (PM) had finished listening to ATIS by the time these changes had been implemented. I briefed him we had been vectored to the north. When we checked in with the new controller; an urgent 20 degree turn [was commanded]. Shortly after that; the same ATC Operator commanded a max rate descent. I was concerned at the urgency the ATC operator was commanding us especially since I didn't hear any reason as to why these urgent commands were issued.In response to further ATC commands the PM expressed his concern and questioned ATC but did not get a response as to why these commands were being given. The controller then directed us to fly present position direct 'Karen' again. The PM asked the controller why [we were asked] to fly direct 'Karen' when [we] had urgently [been] turned away from it earlier; especially as we were following instructions given by the previous controller. During this exchange; the PM phonetically spelled the fix.I feel awful that we potentially created a safety issue because of this. However; I am shocked that two identically sounding waypoints - 'Caran' and 'Karen' - are present within a 250 nm radius of the airport. In analyzing the situation with the PM after the fact; we feel that the spelling of the waypoint was at the root of the issue. We neither questioned internally or with ATC the spelling of a common sounding name for a waypoint. ATC did not offer the spelling of the waypoint either despite issuing a deviation from our clearance; and such waypoint not being noted on the arrival. Assumptions were made on both sides with no intention of doing anything wrong.


Synopsis: A Corporate crew in ZTL airspace was cleared waypoint to CARAN but heard KAREN which was 283 NM separate and entered in the FMC. ATC issued an urgent descent to separate traffic.