Narrative:

As I recall, we were assigned the anpu one departure from runway 6 nebound. This departure requires the crew to depart on the runway 24 icjn localizer course (outbound on the front course) until 7 DME. The captain was flying this leg and briefed setting the course selector window to 53 degrees instead of the 233 degrees required for the front course. I failed to identify the error and we took off with both HSI's in that confign. This confign makes the CDI non-directional. After takeoff, the captain turned right (toward the CDI) to intercept the localizer. However, since the incorrectly-set CDI was non-directional, we were, in fact, turning away from the course and toward high terrain. When we did not intercept the course as expected, we both became uneasy and I tuned the tia VOR in my HSI to verify our location. We immediately recognized the error and corrected the captain's HSI for proper course guidance while expediting the climb. About that time the departure controller asked why we were 'going this way.' at no time did she give any real assistance such as vectors. However, I admit that the navigation error was ours -- not hers. At no time did we come close enough to terrain to activate the GPWS. We also checked the radar for terrain clearance. I have long been concerned that commercial charts indicate the course to be flown rather than the localizer front course to be set in the HSI. This can be confusing and is a serious trap which is built into commercial chart localizer departure depictions - - and it caught us. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter admits that he and the captain made a serious error during their departure by putting the back course heading into their indicator windows. He said that the chief pilot made them go through a retraining program and also gave them 2 weeks off without pay. However, the reporter then said that this departure was still misleading when compared to the hkg departure off of runway 13. The problem with the reporter's comparison is that the hkg departure is a back course departure as whereas the tpe departure was a front course departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FLC GETS OFF COURSE DURING A DEP FROM TPE RWY 6 FRONT COURSE OUTBOUND ON THE ANPU ONE SID. FLC HAD PUT THE BACK COURSE HEADING IN THE HSI WINDOW. B747-200.

Narrative: AS I RECALL, WE WERE ASSIGNED THE ANPU ONE DEP FROM RWY 6 NEBOUND. THIS DEP REQUIRES THE CREW TO DEPART ON THE RWY 24 ICJN LOC COURSE (OUTBOUND ON THE FRONT COURSE) UNTIL 7 DME. THE CAPT WAS FLYING THIS LEG AND BRIEFED SETTING THE COURSE SELECTOR WINDOW TO 53 DEGS INSTEAD OF THE 233 DEGS REQUIRED FOR THE FRONT COURSE. I FAILED TO IDENT THE ERROR AND WE TOOK OFF WITH BOTH HSI'S IN THAT CONFIGN. THIS CONFIGN MAKES THE CDI NON-DIRECTIONAL. AFTER TKOF, THE CAPT TURNED R (TOWARD THE CDI) TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. HOWEVER, SINCE THE INCORRECTLY-SET CDI WAS NON-DIRECTIONAL, WE WERE, IN FACT, TURNING AWAY FROM THE COURSE AND TOWARD HIGH TERRAIN. WHEN WE DID NOT INTERCEPT THE COURSE AS EXPECTED, WE BOTH BECAME UNEASY AND I TUNED THE TIA VOR IN MY HSI TO VERIFY OUR LOCATION. WE IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED THE ERROR AND CORRECTED THE CAPT'S HSI FOR PROPER COURSE GUIDANCE WHILE EXPEDITING THE CLB. ABOUT THAT TIME THE DEP CTLR ASKED WHY WE WERE 'GOING THIS WAY.' AT NO TIME DID SHE GIVE ANY REAL ASSISTANCE SUCH AS VECTORS. HOWEVER, I ADMIT THAT THE NAVIGATION ERROR WAS OURS -- NOT HERS. AT NO TIME DID WE COME CLOSE ENOUGH TO TERRAIN TO ACTIVATE THE GPWS. WE ALSO CHKED THE RADAR FOR TERRAIN CLRNC. I HAVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED THAT COMMERCIAL CHARTS INDICATE THE COURSE TO BE FLOWN RATHER THAN THE LOC FRONT COURSE TO BE SET IN THE HSI. THIS CAN BE CONFUSING AND IS A SERIOUS TRAP WHICH IS BUILT INTO COMMERCIAL CHART LOC DEP DEPICTIONS - - AND IT CAUGHT US. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR ADMITS THAT HE AND THE CAPT MADE A SERIOUS ERROR DURING THEIR DEP BY PUTTING THE BACK COURSE HDG INTO THEIR INDICATOR WINDOWS. HE SAID THAT THE CHIEF PLT MADE THEM GO THROUGH A RETRAINING PROGRAM AND ALSO GAVE THEM 2 WKS OFF WITHOUT PAY. HOWEVER, THE RPTR THEN SAID THAT THIS DEP WAS STILL MISLEADING WHEN COMPARED TO THE HKG DEP OFF OF RWY 13. THE PROB WITH THE RPTR'S COMPARISON IS THAT THE HKG DEP IS A BACK COURSE DEP AS WHEREAS THE TPE DEP WAS A FRONT COURSE 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.