Narrative:

2 aspects of this departure were unsafe. First, our flight was given a pre departure clearance for a sfo 6 SID. After calling clearance we were given a quiet bridge SID. Seconds prior to receiving takeoff clearance, tower gave us a shoreline 9 departure with directions to turn to 050 degrees radar vectors to lin. Planning and briefing 3 sids is very confusing, especially at the last moment before takeoff. This could easily lead to a mistake at a critical time (takeoff) when we should be looking outside and not reconfirming the SID since we were confused from a previously assigned SID. The second problem occurred on takeoff. We were very heavy on takeoff (430000 pounds gross weight) and at approximately 180 ft AGL began the turn to 050 degrees. The takeoff on runway 28R and subsequent turn had us pointed right at the hill by south san francisco. The hill was illuminated by our landing lights while we were in the turn. Our first contact with departure was to stop turn at 030 degrees for traffic. When we rolled out on 030 degrees, we received a 'pull up' from the GPWS. We initiated emergency procedures until the pull up warning ceased. We were given a 050 degree heading from tower, the SID says 040 degrees. The 030 degrees given by ATC did not take into account our weight, turn capability or the hill. I doubt that terps would allow a 030 degree turn due to the danger of that hill. The confusion of the 3 sids, followed by the dangerous directions from ATC made for an interesting takeoff. We feel no change should be given to sids just prior to takeoff. Also, someone should look into the practice of assigning different headings from the SID. If we had lost an engine in the turn, it would have been exciting leveling off while pointed at that hill.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF MAX TKOF WT DC10 TOOK EVASIVE ACTION DURING INITIAL CLB AFTER TKOF TO AVOID TERRAIN TO WHICH THEY WERE HEADED BY DIRECTION FROM ATC.

Narrative: 2 ASPECTS OF THIS DEP WERE UNSAFE. FIRST, OUR FLT WAS GIVEN A PDC FOR A SFO 6 SID. AFTER CALLING CLRNC WE WERE GIVEN A QUIET BRIDGE SID. SECONDS PRIOR TO RECEIVING TKOF CLRNC, TWR GAVE US A SHORELINE 9 DEP WITH DIRECTIONS TO TURN TO 050 DEGS RADAR VECTORS TO LIN. PLANNING AND BRIEFING 3 SIDS IS VERY CONFUSING, ESPECIALLY AT THE LAST MOMENT BEFORE TKOF. THIS COULD EASILY LEAD TO A MISTAKE AT A CRITICAL TIME (TKOF) WHEN WE SHOULD BE LOOKING OUTSIDE AND NOT RECONFIRMING THE SID SINCE WE WERE CONFUSED FROM A PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED SID. THE SECOND PROB OCCURRED ON TKOF. WE WERE VERY HVY ON TKOF (430000 LBS GROSS WT) AND AT APPROX 180 FT AGL BEGAN THE TURN TO 050 DEGS. THE TKOF ON RWY 28R AND SUBSEQUENT TURN HAD US POINTED RIGHT AT THE HILL BY S SAN FRANCISCO. THE HILL WAS ILLUMINATED BY OUR LNDG LIGHTS WHILE WE WERE IN THE TURN. OUR FIRST CONTACT WITH DEP WAS TO STOP TURN AT 030 DEGS FOR TFC. WHEN WE ROLLED OUT ON 030 DEGS, WE RECEIVED A 'PULL UP' FROM THE GPWS. WE INITIATED EMER PROCS UNTIL THE PULL UP WARNING CEASED. WE WERE GIVEN A 050 DEG HDG FROM TWR, THE SID SAYS 040 DEGS. THE 030 DEGS GIVEN BY ATC DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OUR WT, TURN CAPABILITY OR THE HILL. I DOUBT THAT TERPS WOULD ALLOW A 030 DEG TURN DUE TO THE DANGER OF THAT HILL. THE CONFUSION OF THE 3 SIDS, FOLLOWED BY THE DANGEROUS DIRECTIONS FROM ATC MADE FOR AN INTERESTING TKOF. WE FEEL NO CHANGE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SIDS JUST PRIOR TO TKOF. ALSO, SOMEONE SHOULD LOOK INTO THE PRACTICE OF ASSIGNING DIFFERENT HDGS FROM THE SID. IF WE HAD LOST AN ENG IN THE TURN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCITING LEVELING OFF WHILE POINTED AT THAT HILL.

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.