Narrative:

I departed the sjc airport runway 30L on the loupe 9 departure, linden transition. After departure, I turned right and intercepted the sjc 339 degree radial outbound. I wrongly assumed that the '120 degree heading/expect vectors' was for a different transition or departure fix and disregarded it. As we started to intercept the 339 degree radial, I realized that it didn't look right and I asked the first officer to question departure control on the departure procedure. Control advised us that we had exceeded the 4 mi arc and to turn right and rejoin the departure. The conflict occurred while attempting to rejoin the departure. Contributing factor; the flight director command bars were not functioning properly. This was an additional distraction. However, the actual confusion was over the published SID. The first officer and I discussed the SID at the gate prior to departure and we concluded that the 120 degree heading was for a different transition. Corrective action: if the '120 degree heading' and the 'expect vectors' line continued to turn or lop back to the VOR, I think this would clarify the departure procedure. I also suggest that the departure controller could have given us a heading or vector once we questioned the procedure and were no longer on the departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-500 FLC FAILS TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOUPE 9 DEP PROC AFTER A QUICK REVIEW ON THE GND AT SJC, CA.

Narrative: I DEPARTED THE SJC ARPT RWY 30L ON THE LOUPE 9 DEP, LINDEN TRANSITION. AFTER DEP, I TURNED R AND INTERCEPTED THE SJC 339 DEG RADIAL OUTBOUND. I WRONGLY ASSUMED THAT THE '120 DEG HDG/EXPECT VECTORS' WAS FOR A DIFFERENT TRANSITION OR DEP FIX AND DISREGARDED IT. AS WE STARTED TO INTERCEPT THE 339 DEG RADIAL, I REALIZED THAT IT DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT AND I ASKED THE FO TO QUESTION DEP CTL ON THE DEP PROC. CTL ADVISED US THAT WE HAD EXCEEDED THE 4 MI ARC AND TO TURN R AND REJOIN THE DEP. THE CONFLICT OCCURRED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REJOIN THE DEP. CONTRIBUTING FACTOR; THE FLT DIRECTOR COMMAND BARS WERE NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. THIS WAS AN ADDITIONAL DISTR. HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL CONFUSION WAS OVER THE PUBLISHED SID. THE FO AND I DISCUSSED THE SID AT THE GATE PRIOR TO DEP AND WE CONCLUDED THAT THE 120 DEG HDG WAS FOR A DIFFERENT TRANSITION. CORRECTIVE ACTION: IF THE '120 DEG HDG' AND THE 'EXPECT VECTORS' LINE CONTINUED TO TURN OR LOP BACK TO THE VOR, I THINK THIS WOULD CLARIFY THE DEP PROC. I ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE DEP CTLR COULD HAVE GIVEN US A HDG OR VECTOR ONCE WE QUESTIONED THE PROC AND WERE NO LONGER ON THE 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.