Narrative:

I was working local control/ground control/flight data combined at the mkk tower. Air carrier X called up requesting taxi and clearance to hnl. I called hnl center sector 3 and requested clearance for the aircraft. I was originally issued a clearance of, '...after departure heading 360 up to...then direct VORTAC.' I was not familiar with this clearance, so I asked the d-side if something was wrong with the hapai departure, whereupon the d-side controller said to issue the hapai departure. I issued the clearance to air carrier X and cleared the aircraft for takeoff. As the aircraft was getting ready to roll, I offered the alternative that the d-side controller had issued. I said, 'air carrier X, center also offers an alternative of after departure, fly heading 360 up to 4000, then direct to the VORTAC. Which would you prefer?' air carrier X responded, 'we'll take it.' I answered, 'the second one?' I then called the d-side back and told the controller that the air carrier X would prefer the first routing that he issued, and that the aircraft would be departing with a heading of 360 degrees, up to 4000 ft, then direct to the VORTAC. Shortly after air carrier Y called up at the sheraton, out of 5000 ft. I issued entry instructions to air carrier Y. Shortly, I looked up and saw air carrier X heading back toward the VORTAC, and only appeared to be departing about 1500 ft. As soon as I saw what was happening, I immediately called the d-side to let them know what was happening and asked if the r-side was talking to the air carrier X. I then went back and issued traffic on the departing air carrier X to the air carrier Y that was inbound to the airport from the west. Apparently the r-side for sector 3 was able to talk to air carrier X and turned the aircraft back north. From what I could see, the 2 aircraft, small transport and mdt, were about 3-5 mi apart at their closest points. My fault as a controller was not to actually reissue a new clearance to the aircraft, and the fault with the pilot was that he turned back toward the VORTAC after reaching 1500 ft instead of 4000 ft. I feel that this would have been avoided if the d-side controller had not originally issued a non standard clearance. If the departing air carrier X had been simply issued the hapai departure,lokie transition, there would never have been any confusion. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter experience is 2 yrs non radar. The reporter said he had not legally issued the second clearance to air carrier X. The normal clearance from mkk is 360 degree heading at 1500 direct the VOR, maintain 4000 ft. The reporter said he released the air carrier X prior to informing the center air carrier X would be on the second clearance. Reporter received remedial training. Supplemental information from acn 141773: while taxiing ot runway 5, molokai tower cleared us to hnl as followed: 'air carrier X I cleared to hnl via the hapai 1 departure, lokie transition, V8, maintain 4000 ft as filed, squawk XXXX.' while holding short of runway 5 mkk tower told us, 'ZHN advises you will be cleared to hnl via heading 360 degrees to 1500 ft, direct to the mkk VOR, V8, maintain 4000 ft as filed. Which clearance would you prefer?' we chose the revised clearance. We were cleared for takeoff. After flying a heading of 360 degrees to 1500 ft, we started to left turn direct to the VOR. We were handed off to center at that time. Center advised us there was traffic inbound over the VOR. We advised center we had traffic in sight and were given a right turn to a heading of 360 degrees. Center advised us we were to depart using the hapai 1 departure at 4000 ft. I told them we had a revised clearance from mkk tower. ZHN then advised captain to call them when we landed in hnl. On the phone they advised us we had violated an altitude restr. Mkk tower's clearance to us was supposed to be 360 degrees to 4000 ft and back to the mkk VOR. Supplemental information from acn 141612. When we arrived hnl I phoned center supervisor and she asked me what clearance I had received. I told her we received clearance #1 and then #2 and that we took #2 clearance, as this was the most direct route. Also this is the standard INS departure for mkk. What caused the problem I think is mkk tower gave us 2 clrncs, of which we took the most direct routing, or the second clearance received. The problem area is between mkk tower and center, but somehow I was to blame. I don't know how the mistake occurred, but my chief pilot told me that center hadturned it into the FAA stating that the crew was in violation of our clearance received.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION FROM ACR Y. SYSTEM ERROR.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING LCL CTL/GND CTL/FLT DATA COMBINED AT THE MKK TWR. ACR X CALLED UP REQUESTING TAXI AND CLRNC TO HNL. I CALLED HNL CTR SECTOR 3 AND REQUESTED CLRNC FOR THE ACFT. I WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED A CLRNC OF, '...AFTER DEP HDG 360 UP TO...THEN DIRECT VORTAC.' I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS CLRNC, SO I ASKED THE D-SIDE IF SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH THE HAPAI DEP, WHEREUPON THE D-SIDE CTLR SAID TO ISSUE THE HAPAI DEP. I ISSUED THE CLRNC TO ACR X AND CLRED THE ACFT FOR TKOF. AS THE ACFT WAS GETTING READY TO ROLL, I OFFERED THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THE D-SIDE CTLR HAD ISSUED. I SAID, 'ACR X, CTR ALSO OFFERS AN ALTERNATIVE OF AFTER DEP, FLY HDG 360 UP TO 4000, THEN DIRECT TO THE VORTAC. WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER?' ACR X RESPONDED, 'WE'LL TAKE IT.' I ANSWERED, 'THE SECOND ONE?' I THEN CALLED THE D-SIDE BACK AND TOLD THE CTLR THAT THE ACR X WOULD PREFER THE FIRST ROUTING THAT HE ISSUED, AND THAT THE ACFT WOULD BE DEPARTING WITH A HDG OF 360 DEGS, UP TO 4000 FT, THEN DIRECT TO THE VORTAC. SHORTLY AFTER ACR Y CALLED UP AT THE SHERATON, OUT OF 5000 FT. I ISSUED ENTRY INSTRUCTIONS TO ACR Y. SHORTLY, I LOOKED UP AND SAW ACR X HDG BACK TOWARD THE VORTAC, AND ONLY APPEARED TO BE DEPARTING ABOUT 1500 FT. AS SOON AS I SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE D-SIDE TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND ASKED IF THE R-SIDE WAS TALKING TO THE ACR X. I THEN WENT BACK AND ISSUED TFC ON THE DEPARTING ACR X TO THE ACR Y THAT WAS INBND TO THE ARPT FROM THE W. APPARENTLY THE R-SIDE FOR SECTOR 3 WAS ABLE TO TALK TO ACR X AND TURNED THE ACFT BACK N. FROM WHAT I COULD SEE, THE 2 ACFT, SMT AND MDT, WERE ABOUT 3-5 MI APART AT THEIR CLOSEST POINTS. MY FAULT AS A CTLR WAS NOT TO ACTUALLY REISSUE A NEW CLRNC TO THE ACFT, AND THE FAULT WITH THE PLT WAS THAT HE TURNED BACK TOWARD THE VORTAC AFTER REACHING 1500 FT INSTEAD OF 4000 FT. I FEEL THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE D-SIDE CTLR HAD NOT ORIGINALLY ISSUED A NON STANDARD CLRNC. IF THE DEPARTING ACR X HAD BEEN SIMPLY ISSUED THE HAPAI DEP,LOKIE TRANSITION, THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY CONFUSION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR EXPERIENCE IS 2 YRS NON RADAR. THE RPTR SAID HE HAD NOT LEGALLY ISSUED THE SECOND CLRNC TO ACR X. THE NORMAL CLRNC FROM MKK IS 360 DEG HDG AT 1500 DIRECT THE VOR, MAINTAIN 4000 FT. THE RPTR SAID HE RELEASED THE ACR X PRIOR TO INFORMING THE CTR ACR X WOULD BE ON THE SECOND CLRNC. RPTR RECEIVED REMEDIAL TRNING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 141773: WHILE TAXIING OT RWY 5, MOLOKAI TWR CLRED US TO HNL AS FOLLOWED: 'ACR X I CLRED TO HNL VIA THE HAPAI 1 DEP, LOKIE TRANSITION, V8, MAINTAIN 4000 FT AS FILED, SQUAWK XXXX.' WHILE HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 5 MKK TWR TOLD US, 'ZHN ADVISES YOU WILL BE CLRED TO HNL VIA HDG 360 DEGS TO 1500 FT, DIRECT TO THE MKK VOR, V8, MAINTAIN 4000 FT AS FILED. WHICH CLRNC WOULD YOU PREFER?' WE CHOSE THE REVISED CLRNC. WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF. AFTER FLYING A HDG OF 360 DEGS TO 1500 FT, WE STARTED TO L TURN DIRECT TO THE VOR. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO CTR AT THAT TIME. CTR ADVISED US THERE WAS TFC INBND OVER THE VOR. WE ADVISED CTR WE HAD TFC IN SIGHT AND WERE GIVEN A R TURN TO A HDG OF 360 DEGS. CTR ADVISED US WE WERE TO DEPART USING THE HAPAI 1 DEP AT 4000 FT. I TOLD THEM WE HAD A REVISED CLRNC FROM MKK TWR. ZHN THEN ADVISED CAPT TO CALL THEM WHEN WE LANDED IN HNL. ON THE PHONE THEY ADVISED US WE HAD VIOLATED AN ALT RESTR. MKK TWR'S CLRNC TO US WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 360 DEGS TO 4000 FT AND BACK TO THE MKK VOR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 141612. WHEN WE ARRIVED HNL I PHONED CTR SUPVR AND SHE ASKED ME WHAT CLRNC I HAD RECEIVED. I TOLD HER WE RECEIVED CLRNC #1 AND THEN #2 AND THAT WE TOOK #2 CLRNC, AS THIS WAS THE MOST DIRECT RTE. ALSO THIS IS THE STANDARD INS DEP FOR MKK. WHAT CAUSED THE PROB I THINK IS MKK TWR GAVE US 2 CLRNCS, OF WHICH WE TOOK THE MOST DIRECT ROUTING, OR THE SECOND CLRNC RECEIVED. THE PROB AREA IS BTWN MKK TWR AND CTR, BUT SOMEHOW I WAS TO BLAME. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE MISTAKE OCCURRED, BUT MY CHIEF PLT TOLD ME THAT CTR HADTURNED IT INTO THE FAA STATING THAT THE CREW WAS IN VIOLATION OF OUR CLRNC RECEIVED.

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.