37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1246618 |
Time | |
Date | 201503 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | MIA.Airport |
State Reference | FL |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Small Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Flight Phase | Climb |
Route In Use | Vectors SID HEDLY1 |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Person 2 | |
Function | First Officer Pilot Not Flying |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Events | |
Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types |
Narrative:
Assigned the mia hedly 1 departure from 8L. Clearance was misunderstood to mean we were to fly the departure as depicted. We reviewed the departure and the flight plan in accordance with the fom and aom procedures. Upon reaching 8L we were cleared for takeoff. I do not recall hearing an assigned heading nor were we told to 'RNAV to senoy'; the first fix on the dp (departure plate). We departed in nav mode.after takeoff the FMS captured and steered us essentially straight ahead to senoy. At senoy; we began a left turn toward the next fix cimba. At that point ATC queried and suggested that we may have taken someone else's heading. The second in command (pilot not flying) replied that we were following the SID as cleared. ATC said that was incorrect and gave us an amended heading; while I kept the aircraft slow until we sorted it out.miami said they would talk to the tower to figure out what we were assigned; but we never learned the result of that call; if it was ever made. The most telling comment from ATC was 'you wouldn't be the first one to do that; it's something we're working with the FAA on right now.' that was the last thing we heard about it.it seems that there was some confusion on the part of the second in command when the clearance was received. I was not present at that time; but I found it interesting that even following the fom procedures for route verification; that initial copying of the clearance is a potential single point of failure.it seems that there is some known issue either with this departure or in how it is verbalized by miami ATC. The controller's statement suggests that this is not an isolated incident; but it is currently being addressed. I am not suggesting that we require both pilots to be present for the copying of the clearance. There are far too many duties placed on us already; and more show up by the day; including now passenger ipad maintenance; etc.there is simply too much required by our company in getting a plane ready for flight to have yet another requirement for both pilots to be in the cockpit to receive a clearance. Errors will happen; and I will be more cognizant to ask a question if I think something is out of the ordinary. Adding another layer of redundancy in this case will likely lead to something else; perhaps outside of the aircraft; to be missed; unintended consequences.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Pilot and co-pilot report of confusion on departure of flying the RNAV departure or flying to a fix. ATC corrects them and advises that they aren't the first ones to do that.
Narrative: Assigned the MIA Hedly 1 Departure from 8L. Clearance was misunderstood to mean we were to fly the departure as depicted. We reviewed the departure and the flight plan IAW the FOM and AOM procedures. Upon reaching 8L we were cleared for takeoff. I do not recall hearing an assigned heading nor were we told to 'RNAV to Senoy'; the first fix on the DP (Departure Plate). We departed in Nav mode.After takeoff the FMS captured and steered us essentially straight ahead to Senoy. At Senoy; we began a left turn toward the next fix Cimba. At that point ATC queried and suggested that we may have taken someone else's heading. The Second in Command (pilot not flying) replied that we were following the SID as cleared. ATC said that was incorrect and gave us an amended heading; while I kept the aircraft slow until we sorted it out.Miami said they would talk to the tower to figure out what we were assigned; but we never learned the result of that call; if it was ever made. The most telling comment from ATC was 'You wouldn't be the first one to do that; it's something we're working with the FAA on right now.' That was the last thing we heard about it.It seems that there was some confusion on the part of the Second in Command when the clearance was received. I was not present at that time; but I found it interesting that even following the FOM procedures for route verification; that initial copying of the clearance is a potential single point of failure.It seems that there is some known issue either with this departure or in how it is verbalized by Miami ATC. The controller's statement suggests that this is not an isolated incident; but it is currently being addressed. I am not suggesting that we require both pilots to be present for the copying of the clearance. There are far too many duties placed on us already; and more show up by the day; including now passenger iPad maintenance; etc.There is simply too much required by our Company in getting a plane ready for flight to have yet another requirement for both pilots to be in the cockpit to receive a clearance. Errors will happen; and I will be more cognizant to ask a question if I think something is out of the ordinary. Adding another layer of redundancy in this case will likely lead to something else; perhaps outside of the aircraft; to be missed; unintended consequences.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.