Narrative:

After takeoff from lax we made the mistake of turning to intercept the radial that proceeds down the SID departure instead of waiting for further vectors to intercept the 323 degree lax radial. During crew briefing on the ramp I briefed the captain on the SID and made the remark that the lax 323 would come up pretty quickly. I briefed him on the clearance which included a 2000' altitude. Just before takeoff we were assigned 5000' and cleared for takeoff. We still don't remember if the tower gave us the 250 degree heading (this is immaterial, as the SID does). After takeoff and frequency switch (note: we use nos charts), the captain asked me, as the radial went by, do we turn on the radial. I said yes and he started turning. I felt like I had hurriedly answered the question incorrectly and asked departure control which heading he wanted us on. He replied 'on the heading given by the tower!' we turned back but not before getting too close to a commuter taking off on runway 24. We felt really stupid!! How could this happen to 2 pretty highly qualified crew members. We analyzed the wording in this SID compared to others. The question or ambiguity is in the wording 'climb via heading 250 degree for vectors to intercept and proceed via the lax R323.' is the 250 degree a vector to intercept or is it a vector you fly expecting further vectors? Could the heat of the situation of flight cause it to be answered wrong? I wonder if the wording used on the seaco two departure from houston is not better -- where it says 'expect vectors to intercept vuh R-073 degree. What if the gorman 8 would say: 'climb via heading 250 degree expect vectors to intercept and proceed....' no excuses, we blew it!! But if there is a way to make it clearer -- 'that would be great.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LTT TRACK HEADING DEVIATION ON GORMAN 8 SID FROM LAX CAUSES CLOSE PROX WITH COMMUTER ACFT DEPARTING FROM PARALLEL RWY.

Narrative: AFTER TKOF FROM LAX WE MADE THE MISTAKE OF TURNING TO INTERCEPT THE RADIAL THAT PROCEEDS DOWN THE SID DEP INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR FURTHER VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE 323 DEG LAX RADIAL. DURING CREW BRIEFING ON THE RAMP I BRIEFED THE CAPT ON THE SID AND MADE THE REMARK THAT THE LAX 323 WOULD COME UP PRETTY QUICKLY. I BRIEFED HIM ON THE CLRNC WHICH INCLUDED A 2000' ALT. JUST BEFORE TKOF WE WERE ASSIGNED 5000' AND CLRED FOR TKOF. WE STILL DON'T REMEMBER IF THE TWR GAVE US THE 250 DEG HDG (THIS IS IMMATERIAL, AS THE SID DOES). AFTER TKOF AND FREQ SWITCH (NOTE: WE USE NOS CHARTS), THE CAPT ASKED ME, AS THE RADIAL WENT BY, DO WE TURN ON THE RADIAL. I SAID YES AND HE STARTED TURNING. I FELT LIKE I HAD HURRIEDLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION INCORRECTLY AND ASKED DEP CTL WHICH HDG HE WANTED US ON. HE REPLIED 'ON THE HDG GIVEN BY THE TWR!' WE TURNED BACK BUT NOT BEFORE GETTING TOO CLOSE TO A COMMUTER TAKING OFF ON RWY 24. WE FELT REALLY STUPID!! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO 2 PRETTY HIGHLY QUALIFIED CREW MEMBERS. WE ANALYZED THE WORDING IN THIS SID COMPARED TO OTHERS. THE QUESTION OR AMBIGUITY IS IN THE WORDING 'CLIMB VIA HDG 250 DEG FOR VECTORS TO INTERCEPT AND PROCEED VIA THE LAX R323.' IS THE 250 DEG A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT OR IS IT A VECTOR YOU FLY EXPECTING FURTHER VECTORS? COULD THE HEAT OF THE SITUATION OF FLT CAUSE IT TO BE ANSWERED WRONG? I WONDER IF THE WORDING USED ON THE SEACO TWO DEP FROM HOUSTON IS NOT BETTER -- WHERE IT SAYS 'EXPECT VECTORS TO INTERCEPT VUH R-073 DEG. WHAT IF THE GORMAN 8 WOULD SAY: 'CLIMB VIA HDG 250 DEG EXPECT VECTORS TO INTERCEPT AND PROCEED....' NO EXCUSES, WE BLEW IT!! BUT IF THERE IS A WAY TO MAKE IT CLEARER -- 'THAT WOULD BE GREAT.'

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.