Narrative:

The captain called clearance delivery and requested the IFR clearance to erie. The controller read the clearance, the captain read back what he heard, 'cleared to erie via the 8 departure direct tycob direct, climb and maintain 3000 ft, expect FL190 10 mins after departure, departure frequency 124.9, squawk XXXX.' the clearance controller replied 'readback correct.' ground was called and we were told to taxi to runway 27L. Tower was called, 'they replied runway 27L cleared for takeoff.' we followed the SID which said runway heading to 1400 ft before turning. At 1400 ft we turned to tycob because no heading was assigned and the SID said 'then proceed to the assigned departure fix.' this was tycob which was a 126 degree bearing. Shortly after the pontiac tower called and asked if we were on frequency, the captain replied yes. The tower controller said I gave you runway heading. He then gave us a 090 degree heading and pointed out traffic. Later the detroit departure controller advised 'possible pilot deviation call this phone number.' the supervisor at the TRACON told the captain as far as he was concerned we did nothing wrong and they did nothing wrong and he had requested the tapes. At XA00 on apr/xa/99 the pontiac tower supervisor called the captain and said that he reviewed the tapes and that our clearance was radar vectors runway heading the pontiac 8 departure. He also confirmed that the captain misheard and read back the clearance incorrectly and the clearance controller did not catch it and correct it. His reply was shame on us (meaning ATC). He confirmed that the tower controller did not assign a heading and that we never acknowledged a heading and that he could see why he did what we did. The supervisor said that 3 tower supervisors had reviewed the SID and said there was a problem with it. The tower knows why it is runway heading to 1400 ft, the pilots don't. It was also indicated by the supervisor this has been a problem in the past with other aircraft. He said that because it was a clear day and they had both aircraft in sight it was not a problem, but it set off an alarm so paperwork was sent. I feel that the cause of this was a chain of events that started with the clearance being read back incorrectly and then not being corrected. The tower controller not assigning the heading, and the way the SID is written. We followed what we believed to be our clearance (the clearance we read back and were told was correct) and the SID. I feel this is a dangerous and unsafe situation not because of the human errors but because of the SID. What would happen in this situation during lost communications during IMC? I am very concerned with this situation and feel it should be dealt with immediately, or better yet, why has it not been dealt with already if there have been problems in the past?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE501 FLC DEVIATED FROM THE SID AT PTK ENRTE TO ERI.

Narrative: THE CAPT CALLED CLRNC DELIVERY AND REQUESTED THE IFR CLRNC TO ERIE. THE CTLR READ THE CLRNC, THE CAPT READ BACK WHAT HE HEARD, 'CLRED TO ERIE VIA THE 8 DEP DIRECT TYCOB DIRECT, CLB AND MAINTAIN 3000 FT, EXPECT FL190 10 MINS AFTER DEP, DEP FREQ 124.9, SQUAWK XXXX.' THE CLRNC CTLR REPLIED 'READBACK CORRECT.' GND WAS CALLED AND WE WERE TOLD TO TAXI TO RWY 27L. TWR WAS CALLED, 'THEY REPLIED RWY 27L CLRED FOR TKOF.' WE FOLLOWED THE SID WHICH SAID RWY HDG TO 1400 FT BEFORE TURNING. AT 1400 FT WE TURNED TO TYCOB BECAUSE NO HDG WAS ASSIGNED AND THE SID SAID 'THEN PROCEED TO THE ASSIGNED DEP FIX.' THIS WAS TYCOB WHICH WAS A 126 DEG BEARING. SHORTLY AFTER THE PONTIAC TWR CALLED AND ASKED IF WE WERE ON FREQ, THE CAPT REPLIED YES. THE TWR CTLR SAID I GAVE YOU RWY HDG. HE THEN GAVE US A 090 DEG HDG AND POINTED OUT TFC. LATER THE DETROIT DEP CTLR ADVISED 'POSSIBLE PLTDEV CALL THIS PHONE NUMBER.' THE SUPVR AT THE TRACON TOLD THE CAPT AS FAR AS HE WAS CONCERNED WE DID NOTHING WRONG AND THEY DID NOTHING WRONG AND HE HAD REQUESTED THE TAPES. AT XA00 ON APR/XA/99 THE PONTIAC TWR SUPVR CALLED THE CAPT AND SAID THAT HE REVIEWED THE TAPES AND THAT OUR CLRNC WAS RADAR VECTORS RWY HDG THE PONTIAC 8 DEP. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE CAPT MISHEARD AND READ BACK THE CLRNC INCORRECTLY AND THE CLRNC CTLR DID NOT CATCH IT AND CORRECT IT. HIS REPLY WAS SHAME ON US (MEANING ATC). HE CONFIRMED THAT THE TWR CTLR DID NOT ASSIGN A HDG AND THAT WE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED A HDG AND THAT HE COULD SEE WHY HE DID WHAT WE DID. THE SUPVR SAID THAT 3 TWR SUPVRS HAD REVIEWED THE SID AND SAID THERE WAS A PROB WITH IT. THE TWR KNOWS WHY IT IS RWY HDG TO 1400 FT, THE PLTS DON'T. IT WAS ALSO INDICATED BY THE SUPVR THIS HAS BEEN A PROB IN THE PAST WITH OTHER ACFT. HE SAID THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A CLR DAY AND THEY HAD BOTH ACFT IN SIGHT IT WAS NOT A PROB, BUT IT SET OFF AN ALARM SO PAPERWORK WAS SENT. I FEEL THAT THE CAUSE OF THIS WAS A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT STARTED WITH THE CLRNC BEING READ BACK INCORRECTLY AND THEN NOT BEING CORRECTED. THE TWR CTLR NOT ASSIGNING THE HDG, AND THE WAY THE SID IS WRITTEN. WE FOLLOWED WHAT WE BELIEVED TO BE OUR CLRNC (THE CLRNC WE READ BACK AND WERE TOLD WAS CORRECT) AND THE SID. I FEEL THIS IS A DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE SIT NOT BECAUSE OF THE HUMAN ERRORS BUT BECAUSE OF THE SID. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THIS SIT DURING LOST COMS DURING IMC? I AM VERY CONCERNED WITH THIS SIT AND FEEL IT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY, OR BETTER YET, WHY HAS IT NOT BEEN DEALT WITH ALREADY IF THERE HAVE BEEN PROBS IN THE PAST?

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.