Narrative:

On the evening of sep/xa/01, I was preparing to depart mmu on an IFR flight plan to isp at approximately XA45. The tower had closed and due to the current flight restrs at this time regarding operations in and around new york class B airspace, I was advised that I must obtain a clearance from new york approach from a land phone, with a clearance void time. I did so, and advised the controller that I needed 15-20 mins to get back to the plane and make that departure from runway 23. The controller advised me that was too long and could I possibly make it off any quicker. I advised him that I could get off in 10 mins using runway 5. This was acceptable and I was then given a clearance. No mention of runway they expected me to use was given in the clearance, and as the mmu 4 departure is flyable off runway 5, and runway 23, I understood that a departure of runway 5 was implied to comply with their 10 min 'to be airborne' requirement. I was airborne off runway 5 within the allotted time, making all correct TA's, there was no traffic in the immediate area or on the frequency. I contacted departure at 300 ft off the departure end of runway 5 holding runway heading (the procedure requires runway heading to be held to 1700 ft), only to be admonished by the controller for not following the departure he had given me. In the following exchange it became clear to me that the controller had not given me a complete enough clearance (he omitted to clarify the runway he wanted me to use), and that I was flying the correct procedure for the information I was given. There was no other traffic in the area and no conflicts occurred. The remainder of the flight to isp was uneventful.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFUSION CONCERNING DEP RWY AT MMU, NJ, BETWEEN A LIGHT TWIN ATP PLT AND AN N90 DEP CTLR.

Narrative: ON THE EVENING OF SEP/XA/01, I WAS PREPARING TO DEPART MMU ON AN IFR FLT PLAN TO ISP AT APPROX XA45. THE TWR HAD CLOSED AND DUE TO THE CURRENT FLT RESTRS AT THIS TIME REGARDING OPS IN AND AROUND NEW YORK CLASS B AIRSPACE, I WAS ADVISED THAT I MUST OBTAIN A CLRNC FROM NEW YORK APCH FROM A LAND PHONE, WITH A CLRNC VOID TIME. I DID SO, AND ADVISED THE CTLR THAT I NEEDED 15-20 MINS TO GET BACK TO THE PLANE AND MAKE THAT DEP FROM RWY 23. THE CTLR ADVISED ME THAT WAS TOO LONG AND COULD I POSSIBLY MAKE IT OFF ANY QUICKER. I ADVISED HIM THAT I COULD GET OFF IN 10 MINS USING RWY 5. THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE AND I WAS THEN GIVEN A CLRNC. NO MENTION OF RWY THEY EXPECTED ME TO USE WAS GIVEN IN THE CLRNC, AND AS THE MMU 4 DEP IS FLYABLE OFF RWY 5, AND RWY 23, I UNDERSTOOD THAT A DEP OF RWY 5 WAS IMPLIED TO COMPLY WITH THEIR 10 MIN 'TO BE AIRBORNE' REQUIREMENT. I WAS AIRBORNE OFF RWY 5 WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME, MAKING ALL CORRECT TA'S, THERE WAS NO TFC IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OR ON THE FREQ. I CONTACTED DEP AT 300 FT OFF THE DEP END OF RWY 5 HOLDING RWY HDG (THE PROC REQUIRES RWY HDG TO BE HELD TO 1700 FT), ONLY TO BE ADMONISHED BY THE CTLR FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE DEP HE HAD GIVEN ME. IN THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE IT BECAME CLR TO ME THAT THE CTLR HAD NOT GIVEN ME A COMPLETE ENOUGH CLRNC (HE OMITTED TO CLARIFY THE RWY HE WANTED ME TO USE), AND THAT I WAS FLYING THE CORRECT PROC FOR THE INFO I WAS GIVEN. THERE WAS NO OTHER TFC IN THE AREA AND NO CONFLICTS OCCURRED. THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT TO ISP WAS UNEVENTFUL.

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.