Narrative:

I was on an IFR departure from runway 21L at prc when I experienced a heading deviation. We received following departure instructions. 'On departure turn left heading 200; cleared for takeoff ....' field elevation at kprc is approximately 5100 feet. On departure; we received the handoff to approach at approximately 6000 feet. Upon contacting departure control with the climb information; approach acknowledged with a request for me to identify. On a 200 heading; we were climbing into rising terrain. Thinking that seemed like a strange circumstance; we called approach with a request for a heading. We were informed that we would not be in radar contact until at least 9000 to 9500 feet. We were also informed that they could not provide the radar vectors until radar contact was established.our initial thought was why are we with departure control if they are unable to see us; or vector us? In addition to a heading toward rising terrain; the initial heading also took us further from our first fix. Our present altitude was approximately 8000 feet remaining on a heading toward rising terrain. At this point I made the decision to initiate a left climbing turn back around to 200 degrees (making a mistaken assumption that this was the intended instruction to gain altitude to attain radar contact). I failed to inform departure control of the turn and the reason behind this decision. Upon reaching approximately 9000 feet passing through a heading of 010-360 in the left climbing turn; we were in radar contact and instructed to turn right to 045 and intercept the airway.a few moments later the controller came online and indicated that they spoke with tower regarding instruction and confirmed it was a 200 heading. They acknowledged that we were not informed that we would not be in radar contact until passing 9000-9500 feet then expect vectors. I responded with the concern about rising terrain and controller indicated that while PIC discretion; I am obliged to inform ATC. I acknowledged with 'understood.' the controller was understanding; indicating that the goal is to make sure 'we are all on the same page for the next time.'while ATC instructions were standard at the outset; confusion came from the 10 degree heading on departure; combined with the rising terrain; and the early handoff from tower to departure control. An approach control that would not have radar contact for several minutes while we were climbing on an IFR flight plan on an assigned heading toward rising terrain.prc tower could have provided additional information about what TRACON was capable of and expecting. We were not aware that phx would not have radar contact and be able to provide additional vectors; nor were we informed. When we were concerned about instruction and queried were we informed that we were to follow tower instruction until radar contact was established.of greater concern to me is that the tower handed us off early to an approach control unable to attain radar contact and providing no instructions. We are flying a high-performance piston twin; with taws (terrain awareness and warning system) and in visual conditions. Should that instruction have been given in IMC; at night; or should we not have had performance or onboard technology adherence to the heading increases the likelihood of a CFIT occurrence. If we had not continued a climb for any reason; phx approach would never have radar contact to assist.it also makes little sense to receive a clearance for radar vectors; be handed off early and be informed that they are unable to provide those vectors. Much of my confusion would have been avoided with the issuance of a heading on departure that climbs the aircraft away from terrain and toward the intended course. There was no imminent threat of loss of terrain clearance; however I was not comfortable; even in VMC accepting a heading into climbing terrain on an IFR flight plan outside of radar contact. While I am comfortable with the decision to turn it was based on the 'assumption' of an instruction that perhaps the left turn to 200 was to be a 360 degree turn (an instruction I have received in the past at other high altitude airports). I failed to inform ATC of my intentions and the reason until after the fact; leading to the heading deviation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE58 pilot was concerned his assigned departure heading was toward high terrain while he was in an area where ATC did not have radar contact.

Narrative: I was on an IFR departure from runway 21L at PRC when I experienced a heading deviation. We received following departure instructions. 'On departure turn left heading 200; cleared for takeoff ....' Field elevation at KPRC is approximately 5100 feet. On departure; we received the handoff to approach at approximately 6000 feet. Upon contacting Departure Control with the climb information; approach acknowledged with a request for me to IDENT. On a 200 heading; we were climbing into rising terrain. Thinking that seemed like a strange circumstance; we called approach with a request for a heading. We were informed that we would not be in radar contact until at least 9000 to 9500 feet. We were also informed that they could not provide the radar vectors until radar contact was established.Our initial thought was why are we with Departure Control if they are unable to see us; or vector us? In addition to a heading toward rising terrain; the initial heading also took us further from our first fix. Our present altitude was approximately 8000 feet remaining on a heading toward rising terrain. At this point I made the decision to initiate a left climbing turn back around to 200 degrees (making a mistaken assumption that this was the intended instruction to gain altitude to attain radar contact). I failed to inform Departure Control of the turn and the reason behind this decision. Upon reaching approximately 9000 feet passing through a heading of 010-360 in the left climbing turn; we were in radar contact and instructed to turn right to 045 and intercept the airway.A few moments later the controller came online and indicated that they spoke with tower regarding instruction and confirmed it was a 200 heading. They acknowledged that we were not informed that we would not be in radar contact until passing 9000-9500 feet then expect vectors. I responded with the concern about rising terrain and controller indicated that while PIC discretion; I am obliged to inform ATC. I acknowledged with 'Understood.' The controller was understanding; indicating that the goal is to make sure 'we are all on the same page for the next time.'While ATC instructions were standard at the outset; confusion came from the 10 degree heading on departure; combined with the rising terrain; and the early handoff from tower to Departure Control. An Approach Control that would not have radar contact for several minutes while we were climbing on an IFR flight plan on an assigned heading toward rising terrain.PRC tower could have provided additional information about what TRACON was capable of and expecting. We were not aware that PHX would not have radar contact and be able to provide additional vectors; nor were we informed. When we were concerned about instruction and queried were we informed that we were to follow tower instruction until radar contact was established.Of greater concern to me is that the tower handed us off early to an approach control unable to attain radar contact and providing no instructions. We are flying a high-performance piston twin; with TAWS (Terrain Awareness and Warning System) and in visual conditions. Should that instruction have been given in IMC; at Night; or should we not have had performance or onboard technology adherence to the heading increases the likelihood of a CFIT occurrence. If we had not continued a climb for any reason; PHX approach would never have radar contact to assist.It also makes little sense to receive a clearance for radar vectors; be handed off early and be informed that they are unable to provide those vectors. Much of my confusion would have been avoided with the issuance of a heading on departure that climbs the aircraft away from terrain and toward the intended course. There was no imminent threat of loss of terrain clearance; however I was not comfortable; even in VMC accepting a heading into climbing terrain on an IFR flight plan outside of radar contact. While I am comfortable with the decision to turn it was based on the 'assumption' of an instruction that perhaps the left turn to 200 was to be a 360 degree turn (an instruction I have received in the past at other high altitude airports). I failed to inform ATC of my intentions and the reason until after the fact; leading to the heading deviation.

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.