Narrative:

Air carrier X departing st thomas, vi. Landing san juan puerto rico. We were issued and received an IFR clearance which included the 'bacardi 1' departure from runway 28 at st thomas to join the palco 5 departure. The bacardi one departure depicts a 250 degree heading to intercept the san juan 113 degree radial inbound to san juan. Upon contacting st thomas tower for takeoff clearance, we requested to maintain the runway heading of 280 degrees to intercept the san juan 113 degree radial, which was granted shortly thereafter by the tower controller while we held short of the runway. Shortly after takeoff we were instructed to contact san juan approach on 128.65. Upon contacting san juan approach we received a stern order to execute an immediate left turn to heading of 250 degrees 'now,' in addition to being issued a traffic safety alert due to nearby inbound traffic. We were then instructed by the same controller to contact them by telephone upon arriving at san juan. We later contacted approach control via telephone and were told that st thomas tower never authorized us to maintain runway heading 280 degrees after takeoff and that we simply ignored the previously issued 'bacardi one departure' clearance, despite the fact that both the captain and I clearly heard and understood the runway heading instruction issued by st thomas tower prior to takeoff. I strongly feel that st thomas tower failed to properly coordination and relay our runway heading request to san juan approach, thus creating the traffic conflict between our departing flight and the inbound traffic flow. Finally, I also feel that the st thomas tower controller intentionally 'misled' approach control during the post incident follow-up which gave approach control the impression that we were not given authorization to maintain runway heading after departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC.

Narrative: ACR X DEPARTING ST THOMAS, VI. LNDG SAN JUAN PUERTO RICO. WE WERE ISSUED AND RECEIVED AN IFR CLRNC WHICH INCLUDED THE 'BACARDI 1' DEP FROM RWY 28 AT ST THOMAS TO JOIN THE PALCO 5 DEP. THE BACARDI ONE DEP DEPICTS A 250 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT THE SAN JUAN 113 DEG RADIAL INBOUND TO SAN JUAN. UPON CONTACTING ST THOMAS TWR FOR TKOF CLRNC, WE REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN THE RWY HDG OF 280 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE SAN JUAN 113 DEG RADIAL, WHICH WAS GRANTED SHORTLY THEREAFTER BY THE TWR CTLR WHILE WE HELD SHORT OF THE RWY. SHORTLY AFTER TKOF WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT SAN JUAN APCH ON 128.65. UPON CONTACTING SAN JUAN APCH WE RECEIVED A STERN ORDER TO EXECUTE AN IMMEDIATE L TURN TO HDG OF 250 DEGS 'NOW,' IN ADDITION TO BEING ISSUED A TFC SAFETY ALERT DUE TO NEARBY INBOUND TFC. WE WERE THEN INSTRUCTED BY THE SAME CTLR TO CONTACT THEM BY TELEPHONE UPON ARRIVING AT SAN JUAN. WE LATER CONTACTED APCH CTL VIA TELEPHONE AND WERE TOLD THAT ST THOMAS TWR NEVER AUTHORIZED US TO MAINTAIN RWY HDG 280 DEGS AFTER TKOF AND THAT WE SIMPLY IGNORED THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED 'BACARDI ONE DEP' CLRNC, DESPITE THE FACT THAT BOTH THE CAPT AND I CLRLY HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD THE RWY HDG INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY ST THOMAS TWR PRIOR TO TKOF. I STRONGLY FEEL THAT ST THOMAS TWR FAILED TO PROPERLY COORD AND RELAY OUR RWY HDG REQUEST TO SAN JUAN APCH, THUS CREATING THE TFC CONFLICT BTWN OUR DEPARTING FLT AND THE INBOUND TFC FLOW. FINALLY, I ALSO FEEL THAT THE ST THOMAS TWR CTLR INTENTIONALLY 'MISLED' APCH CTL DURING THE POST INCIDENT FOLLOW-UP WHICH GAVE APCH CTL THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE NOT GIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO MAINTAIN RWY HDG AFTER DEP.

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.