Narrative:

Our ATC clearance was understood and read back to be: 'V5, V11 upp as filed to maintain FL380.' we departed runway 17, flew runway heading to 500' and made a right turn and intercepted the assigned route at mynah intersection. When ZHN established radar contact they asked about our departure instructions (koa tower). They read back, 'climb on 250 degree heading until leaving 10000'.' ZHN indicated there was a traffic conflict but didn't say what it was. We were in VMC with unlimited visibility and did not visually see and conflict. Contributing factors: the question is, what clearance was issued and what clearance was accepted and read back by us? In this case the first officer did the communicating with koa tower at a time that I was working with the second officer on some problem, and my full attention was not on the clearance. I did however understand the routing to be V5, V11 and verified this with the first officer prior to takeoff. At no time did I heard from ATC or the first officer's readback of the '250 degree heading until leaving 10000'' clearance. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter does not believe ATC is processing a violation. Very little was said by controller and reporter has no direct knowledge of a traffic conflict, but had a feeling that all was not right. Discussed the wording of the departure controller with first officer, but his statement was vague and reporter did not press the issue with the first officer.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF HVT QUESTION REGARDING DEP ROUTE FROM KOA: TWR CTLR ALLEGED CLIMB 250 DEGREE HEADING UNTIL 1000'. WE UNDERSTOOD RIGHT TURN TO 500', RIGHT TURN TO INTERCEPT AIRWAY.

Narrative: OUR ATC CLRNC WAS UNDERSTOOD AND READ BACK TO BE: 'V5, V11 UPP AS FILED TO MAINTAIN FL380.' WE DEPARTED RWY 17, FLEW RWY HDG TO 500' AND MADE A RIGHT TURN AND INTERCEPTED THE ASSIGNED RTE AT MYNAH INTXN. WHEN ZHN ESTABLISHED RADAR CONTACT THEY ASKED ABOUT OUR DEP INSTRUCTIONS (KOA TWR). THEY READ BACK, 'CLB ON 250 DEG HDG UNTIL LEAVING 10000'.' ZHN INDICATED THERE WAS A TFC CONFLICT BUT DIDN'T SAY WHAT IT WAS. WE WERE IN VMC WITH UNLIMITED VISIBILITY AND DID NOT VISUALLY SEE AND CONFLICT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: THE QUESTION IS, WHAT CLRNC WAS ISSUED AND WHAT CLRNC WAS ACCEPTED AND READ BACK BY US? IN THIS CASE THE F/O DID THE COMMUNICATING WITH KOA TWR AT A TIME THAT I WAS WORKING WITH THE S/O ON SOME PROB, AND MY FULL ATTN WAS NOT ON THE CLRNC. I DID HOWEVER UNDERSTAND THE RTING TO BE V5, V11 AND VERIFIED THIS WITH THE F/O PRIOR TO TKOF. AT NO TIME DID I HEARD FROM ATC OR THE F/O'S READBACK OF THE '250 DEG HDG UNTIL LEAVING 10000'' CLRNC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR DOES NOT BELIEVE ATC IS PROCESSING A VIOLATION. VERY LITTLE WAS SAID BY CTLR AND RPTR HAS NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF A TFC CONFLICT, BUT HAD A FEELING THAT ALL WAS NOT RIGHT. DISCUSSED THE WORDING OF THE DEP CTLR WITH F/O, BUT HIS STATEMENT WAS VAGUE AND RPTR DID NOT PRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE F/O.

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.