Narrative:

I was flying single pilot under an FAA exemption issued to manufacturer for qualified pilots to fly the model with one pilot even though it is certified for 2 pilots. This exemption is based on the pilot's qualifications and annual training and I was current with all the requirements at the time of this incident. I received the clearance which read: 'nxxxx cleared to the smf airport via the loupe six departure with sacramento transition. Climb and maintain 6000' and expect 14,000' 10 mins after departure. Departure frequency XXXX, squawk XXXX, and do not exceed 250 KTS until notified.' I read the clearance back and the controller acknowledged. I began to study the loupe six departure as depicted by the current chart in the NOAA book, 'standard instrument departures (civil), western united states, page 244.' I was unfamiliar with this SID and my study was limited to one page, page 244. I did not notice the note at the bottom which said '(continued on next page'. I was departing runway 30L which required detailed procedures listed on page 245. Page 245 was folded underneath the book to make it easier to handle. My study concentrated on the graphic depiction which showed a dark line departing the sjc VOR on the 339 radial. This is the route I attempted to fly which caused me to deviate from the prescribed path and altitude restrictions which were explained on page 245, for runways 30L/right. About 3 mins after takeoff the controller called me asking me to descend to 5000' immediately and turn to 120 degree for vector to the sjc VOR. I descended rapidly and turned to 120 degrees. After the turn, I saw that the sjc VOR was about 180 degrees and turned to correct to navigate direct. The controller called again to reconfirm his request for 120 degrees. I complied and he asked me to call him after landing. The subsequent flight was conducted without further problems and there never was a close encounter with another aircraft. The conversation with the controller revealed that this SID, loupe six, has caused problems with many pilots. He said the procedure had been changed recently in an attempt to make it simpler. He was concerned because of the altitude deviation. I was at 5800' when he called for immediate descent to 5000'. Of course, I was climbing to 6000', which was the altitude assigned in the clearance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORP PLT ON FERRY FLT FOR MAINTENANCE DOES NOT FOLLOW SID. HEADING DEVIATION AND ALT DEVIATION RESULT.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING SINGLE PLT UNDER AN FAA EXEMPTION ISSUED TO MANUFACTURER FOR QUALIFIED PLTS TO FLY THE MODEL WITH ONE PLT EVEN THOUGH IT IS CERTIFIED FOR 2 PLTS. THIS EXEMPTION IS BASED ON THE PLT'S QUALIFICATIONS AND ANNUAL TRAINING AND I WAS CURRENT WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT. I RECEIVED THE CLRNC WHICH READ: 'NXXXX CLRED TO THE SMF ARPT VIA THE LOUPE SIX DEP WITH SACRAMENTO TRANSITION. CLIMB AND MAINTAIN 6000' AND EXPECT 14,000' 10 MINS AFTER DEP. DEP FREQ XXXX, SQUAWK XXXX, AND DO NOT EXCEED 250 KTS UNTIL NOTIFIED.' I READ THE CLRNC BACK AND THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED. I BEGAN TO STUDY THE LOUPE SIX DEP AS DEPICTED BY THE CURRENT CHART IN THE NOAA BOOK, 'STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPS (CIVIL), WESTERN UNITED STATES, PAGE 244.' I WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS SID AND MY STUDY WAS LIMITED TO ONE PAGE, PAGE 244. I DID NOT NOTICE THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM WHICH SAID '(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE'. I WAS DEPARTING RWY 30L WHICH REQUIRED DETAILED PROCS LISTED ON PAGE 245. PAGE 245 WAS FOLDED UNDERNEATH THE BOOK TO MAKE IT EASIER TO HANDLE. MY STUDY CONCENTRATED ON THE GRAPHIC DEPICTION WHICH SHOWED A DARK LINE DEPARTING THE SJC VOR ON THE 339 RADIAL. THIS IS THE ROUTE I ATTEMPTED TO FLY WHICH CAUSED ME TO DEVIATE FROM THE PRESCRIBED PATH AND ALT RESTRICTIONS WHICH WERE EXPLAINED ON PAGE 245, FOR RWYS 30L/R. ABOUT 3 MINS AFTER TKOF THE CTLR CALLED ME ASKING ME TO DSND TO 5000' IMMEDIATELY AND TURN TO 120 DEG FOR VECTOR TO THE SJC VOR. I DESCENDED RAPIDLY AND TURNED TO 120 DEGS. AFTER THE TURN, I SAW THAT THE SJC VOR WAS ABOUT 180 DEGS AND TURNED TO CORRECT TO NAVIGATE DIRECT. THE CTLR CALLED AGAIN TO RECONFIRM HIS REQUEST FOR 120 DEGS. I COMPLIED AND HE ASKED ME TO CALL HIM AFTER LNDG. THE SUBSEQUENT FLT WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROBLEMS AND THERE NEVER WAS A CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH ANOTHER ACFT. THE CONVERSATION WITH THE CTLR REVEALED THAT THIS SID, LOUPE SIX, HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS WITH MANY PLTS. HE SAID THE PROC HAD BEEN CHANGED RECENTLY IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT SIMPLER. HE WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE ALT DEVIATION. I WAS AT 5800' WHEN HE CALLED FOR IMMEDIATE DSCNT TO 5000'. OF COURSE, I WAS CLIMBING TO 6000', WHICH WAS THE ALT ASSIGNED IN THE CLRNC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.