Narrative:

While executing the mdw 4 SID, I was asked by the controller to tighten up the turn to comply with the SID. At the time, I had inadvertently strayed beyond the 4-MI turn radius specified on the SID. I immediately steepened the bank and returned within the 4-MI radius. Maximum excursion never exceeded 5.2 mi, as indicated on DME. Thus, the overshoot was approximately 1.2 mi at most. My focus was on smooth flight technique, rather than on strict adherence to the details of the SID. The controller's attitude was gruff. I feel it is in my best interest to submit a NASA report in case the controller is trigger happy with violations. I feel there was never any traffic conflict, obstruction conflict, safety hazard, etc. Later on that same flight, en route to dtw, I once again incurred the ire of ATC when a combination of unusually high winds from the northwest, coupled with a shallow turn to join V30 southwest of lfd, resulted in a course deviation east of the desired course. ATC (ZOB, I believe) issued vectors to compensate for my drift. I am at fault in both instances for relying too heavily on normal bank angles, as recommended in our company flight operations manual to ensure passenger comfort, which are insufficient in many cases to adhere to required standards governing course tracing. This double-whammy got my attention.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG CAPT GIVES 2 EXAMPLES OF FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A CLRNC PUBLISHED PROC THAT RESULTED IN TRACK DEVIATION. SAYS COMPLIANCE WITH COMPANY PROC CAUSED THIS TO HAPPEN.

Narrative: WHILE EXECUTING THE MDW 4 SID, I WAS ASKED BY THE CTLR TO TIGHTEN UP THE TURN TO COMPLY WITH THE SID. AT THE TIME, I HAD INADVERTENTLY STRAYED BEYOND THE 4-MI TURN RADIUS SPECIFIED ON THE SID. I IMMEDIATELY STEEPENED THE BANK AND RETURNED WITHIN THE 4-MI RADIUS. MAX EXCURSION NEVER EXCEEDED 5.2 MI, AS INDICATED ON DME. THUS, THE OVERSHOOT WAS APPROX 1.2 MI AT MOST. MY FOCUS WAS ON SMOOTH FLT TECHNIQUE, RATHER THAN ON STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE DETAILS OF THE SID. THE CTLR'S ATTITUDE WAS GRUFF. I FEEL IT IS IN MY BEST INTEREST TO SUBMIT A NASA RPT IN CASE THE CTLR IS TRIGGER HAPPY WITH VIOLATIONS. I FEEL THERE WAS NEVER ANY TFC CONFLICT, OBSTRUCTION CONFLICT, SAFETY HAZARD, ETC. LATER ON THAT SAME FLT, ENRTE TO DTW, I ONCE AGAIN INCURRED THE IRE OF ATC WHEN A COMBINATION OF UNUSUALLY HIGH WINDS FROM THE NW, COUPLED WITH A SHALLOW TURN TO JOIN V30 SW OF LFD, RESULTED IN A COURSE DEVIATION E OF THE DESIRED COURSE. ATC (ZOB, I BELIEVE) ISSUED VECTORS TO COMPENSATE FOR MY DRIFT. I AM AT FAULT IN BOTH INSTANCES FOR RELYING TOO HEAVILY ON NORMAL BANK ANGLES, AS RECOMMENDED IN OUR COMPANY FLT OPS MANUAL TO ENSURE PAX COMFORT, WHICH ARE INSUFFICIENT IN MANY CASES TO ADHERE TO REQUIRED STANDARDS GOVERNING COURSE TRACING. THIS DOUBLE-WHAMMY GOT MY ATTN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.