Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Procedure
Seattle ARTCC often fails to correctly issue our IFR clearance for flights from EAT. On this occasion; as is often the case; they did not state the name of the departure procedure; the ZARLO2; when they cleared us 'as filed'. Since; according to the AIM in section 5-2-5; the specific Departure (DP) must be named prior to the phrase 'as filed' if it is to be flown; I attempted to clarify our clearance with Center by requesting the ZARLO2. After several verbal exchanges; things weren't much clearer. The controller kept repeating that we were already cleared 'as filed' while never once stating the name 'ZARLO2'; or any other DP; despite my request. At one point; he did state that we could 'do whatever you need to do; and I'll clear you direct GLASR when I have you in radar contact'. After hearing this; in the interest of safety and clarity; I informed him that we intended to fly the ZARLO2. Once we were aloft and again in radio contact with this controller; he queried us about our concern; and when I informed him that being cleared 'as filed' does NOT include the DP; and that those had to be named specifically; he stated 'that's the dumbest thing I'd ever heard'.I recommend additional training for Seattle Center's controllers. Every other ATC facility in our system (except LWS; which is another problem) issues clearances properly; according to the protocol outlined in the AIM section 5-2-5. I believe it's dangerous to deviate from this common practice. Catastrophic consequences could result if the pilot and controller allow sloppy and lazily delivered clearances to lead to a misunderstanding over which DP is being flown.
Air Carrier Captain reported ZSE Center did not correctly issue IFR clearances from EAT by not including the departure procedure.