Narrative:

Inadvertent deviation from departure procedure. Crew loaded and reviewed the departure in the FMS after receiving the clearance. I was PIC and checked the points/headings/distances throughout the loaded flight plan. Verified everything looked correct on the plan view of the mfd. Crew briefed the departure with the departure plate in front of them. The review included the initial headings; turns; and altitudes. We were cleared for take-off and preceded on the peble 6 departure. I (PIC) followed the command bars; and sic completed the climb checklist. About the time that I realized that we were climbing over the houses and should be heading on a more northerly heading we were given a heading of 290 (the command bars were still showing ~268).ATC asked us to call them when able on a landline. I called san diego when we completed our 3 legs for the day and the controller asked me if we had a honeywell box. Yes; we did. The controller said they have had many issues with this departure and the honeywell FMS. I failed to see the 813 nm error on the initial climb segment from the departure end of the runway and [the FMS] directed me to fly considerably south of course!a combination of 1) database error 2) lack of crew [awareness to] catch the error on initial verification process and 3) lack of crew [awareness]to realize the heading error once airborne until we were off course were all contributing factors. As we rely on automation for navigation; it is imperative that we do not get complacent in our vigilance to confirm and re-confirm our position and situational awareness.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC advised GV flight crew of a track deviation while flying the PEBLE 6 Departure out of SAN; and stated they have seen other Honeywell FMS-equipped aircraft experience similar track deviations.

Narrative: Inadvertent Deviation from departure procedure. Crew loaded and reviewed the departure in the FMS after receiving the clearance. I was PIC and checked the points/headings/distances throughout the loaded flight plan. Verified everything looked correct on the plan view of the MFD. Crew briefed the Departure with the departure plate in front of them. The review included the initial headings; turns; and altitudes. We were cleared for take-off and preceded on the PEBLE 6 departure. I (PIC) followed the Command Bars; and SIC completed the climb checklist. About the time that I realized that we were climbing over the houses and should be heading on a more northerly heading we were given a heading of 290 (the command bars were still showing ~268).ATC asked us to call them when able on a landline. I called San Diego when we completed our 3 legs for the day and the controller asked me if we had a Honeywell box. Yes; we did. The controller said they have had many issues with this departure and the Honeywell FMS. I failed to see the 813 nm error on the initial climb segment from the departure end of the runway and [the FMS] directed me to fly considerably south of course!A combination of 1) database error 2) Lack of crew [awareness to] catch the error on initial verification process and 3) Lack of crew [awareness]to realize the heading error once airborne until we were off course were all contributing factors. As we rely on automation for navigation; it is imperative that we do not get complacent in our vigilance to confirm and re-confirm our position and situational awareness.

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.