Narrative:

After takeoff runway 29, bay departure cleared me to 6000', turn to 090 degree intercept V107, resume navigation. This was acknowledged and repeated back to controller. While proceeding on heading 090, I heard an exchange between the controller and (another) same small aircraft, which had departed sjc runway 29 behind me, regarding his not following his clearance. The controller then called me and asked why I had not turned to 040? I replied that I had understood 090. He then issued 040, which I acknowledged. I turned 50 degree left and the trip had no further events. The bay area controller was working several air carrier flts, and seemed preoccupied with them. He was rather abrupt with the two small aircraft aircraft departing sjc, but not actually discourteous. He reprimanded the other small aircraft for continuing on runway heading rather than turning to a new heading. The other pilot said he had not received the vector (and I didn't recall hearing it either). The controller apparently didn't pay attention to my readback, because he did not correct my statement '090 heading.' it might be noted that 090 would head me generally toward vinco intersection, which was my original clearance, and therefore seemed normal. If there had been a conflict of airspace, I was not and am not now aware of it. I wonder if this controller may have regarded these two single engine small aircraft's as intruders into the orderly world of ATC and big iron.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA RECEIVES CONFUSING HEADING CLRNCS ON IFR DEP.

Narrative: AFTER TKOF RWY 29, BAY DEP CLRED ME TO 6000', TURN TO 090 DEG INTERCEPT V107, RESUME NAV. THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AND REPEATED BACK TO CTLR. WHILE PROCEEDING ON HDG 090, I HEARD AN EXCHANGE BTWN THE CTLR AND (ANOTHER) SAME SMA, WHICH HAD DEPARTED SJC RWY 29 BEHIND ME, REGARDING HIS NOT FOLLOWING HIS CLRNC. THE CTLR THEN CALLED ME AND ASKED WHY I HAD NOT TURNED TO 040? I REPLIED THAT I HAD UNDERSTOOD 090. HE THEN ISSUED 040, WHICH I ACKNOWLEDGED. I TURNED 50 DEG LEFT AND THE TRIP HAD NO FURTHER EVENTS. THE BAY AREA CTLR WAS WORKING SEVERAL AIR CARRIER FLTS, AND SEEMED PREOCCUPIED WITH THEM. HE WAS RATHER ABRUPT WITH THE TWO SMA ACFT DEPARTING SJC, BUT NOT ACTUALLY DISCOURTEOUS. HE REPRIMANDED THE OTHER SMA FOR CONTINUING ON RWY HDG RATHER THAN TURNING TO A NEW HDG. THE OTHER PLT SAID HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE VECTOR (AND I DIDN'T RECALL HEARING IT EITHER). THE CTLR APPARENTLY DIDN'T PAY ATTN TO MY READBACK, BECAUSE HE DID NOT CORRECT MY STATEMENT '090 HDG.' IT MIGHT BE NOTED THAT 090 WOULD HEAD ME GENERALLY TOWARD VINCO INTXN, WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL CLRNC, AND THEREFORE SEEMED NORMAL. IF THERE HAD BEEN A CONFLICT OF AIRSPACE, I WAS NOT AND AM NOT NOW AWARE OF IT. I WONDER IF THIS CTLR MAY HAVE REGARDED THESE TWO SINGLE ENG SMA'S AS INTRUDERS INTO THE ORDERLY WORLD OF ATC AND BIG IRON.

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.