Narrative:

On oct/wed/01 I was the sic of a beech king air 200 departing cdw at XA30. The tower was not in operation, so the field was an uncontrolled in the enhanced class B airspace. The PIC received our clearance for an IFR flight to hpn using a telephone landline to TRACON. I was getting the latest WX on the computer but overheard some discussion as to which of the runways we were going to use, but was not sure which one was decided on. I suggested that he take the phone number for TRACON so that we could use our cell phones in the event we overran our clearance void time or if there were any other questions prior to takeoff. The PIC made no comment to that decision and commented that we were cleared to 2000 ft and to expect 3000 ft in 10 mins after takeoff, and that the route was cdw-breezy-carmel direct hpn. As the wind was nearly calm, I chose to take off on runway 4 as it was in the direction of our flight. It took about 15 mins to start, taxi and run up. As we took the runway for takeoff, I asked the PIC about the status of our clearance void time and he responded that we were ok to go. Immediately after checking in on departure frequency, the first controller that talked to us was completely replaced by the controller who had spoken to the PIC on the landline. The controller was very upset because we had taken off on runway 4 as opposed to runway 22, which we were cleared for. He further stated we did not do the SID. While there is no published SID, the local IFR clrncs issued, regardless of runway, normally calls for a left turn to a heading of 180 degrees climbing to 2000 ft for radar vectors to the departure fix off either runway. During tower operating hours sometimes a flight is cleared direct to breezy by TRACON through the tower when departing runway 4. I assumed, rather than challenged the norm, that direct breezy was given to the PIC on the landline clearance. The controller was upset with our not following the clearance, since, as he said, if it weren't for the fact it was so early (traffic light) we would have conflicted with teb VOR-a approachs which pass off the end of runway 4. The lesson that I learned from this experience is that CRM cannot function when 2 pilots do not hear the clearance simultaneously. The second pilot is unable to challenge a clearance received by the other pilot over a landline. In the aircraft, both pilots have the ability to listen to ATC communications so we both can verify the clearance. When using a landline, the non communicating pilot should challenge the other pilot as though they were in the aircraft. The communicating pilot should be challenged as to void clearance time, agreed departure runway, route, altitudes and frequencys. Absence of a challenge can be dangerous for everyone. In addition, one should never assume anything. I should have challenged the PIC about the fact that we were going direct and turning to the 'normal' 180 degree heading.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE20 CREW VIOLATED THEIR CLRNC BY USING THE WRONG RWY FOR TKOF.

Narrative: ON OCT/WED/01 I WAS THE SIC OF A BEECH KING AIR 200 DEPARTING CDW AT XA30. THE TWR WAS NOT IN OP, SO THE FIELD WAS AN UNCTLED IN THE ENHANCED CLASS B AIRSPACE. THE PIC RECEIVED OUR CLRNC FOR AN IFR FLT TO HPN USING A TELEPHONE LANDLINE TO TRACON. I WAS GETTING THE LATEST WX ON THE COMPUTER BUT OVERHEARD SOME DISCUSSION AS TO WHICH OF THE RWYS WE WERE GOING TO USE, BUT WAS NOT SURE WHICH ONE WAS DECIDED ON. I SUGGESTED THAT HE TAKE THE PHONE NUMBER FOR TRACON SO THAT WE COULD USE OUR CELL PHONES IN THE EVENT WE OVERRAN OUR CLRNC VOID TIME OR IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS PRIOR TO TKOF. THE PIC MADE NO COMMENT TO THAT DECISION AND COMMENTED THAT WE WERE CLRED TO 2000 FT AND TO EXPECT 3000 FT IN 10 MINS AFTER TKOF, AND THAT THE RTE WAS CDW-BREEZY-CARMEL DIRECT HPN. AS THE WIND WAS NEARLY CALM, I CHOSE TO TAKE OFF ON RWY 4 AS IT WAS IN THE DIRECTION OF OUR FLT. IT TOOK ABOUT 15 MINS TO START, TAXI AND RUN UP. AS WE TOOK THE RWY FOR TKOF, I ASKED THE PIC ABOUT THE STATUS OF OUR CLRNC VOID TIME AND HE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE OK TO GO. IMMEDIATELY AFTER CHKING IN ON DEP FREQ, THE FIRST CTLR THAT TALKED TO US WAS COMPLETELY REPLACED BY THE CTLR WHO HAD SPOKEN TO THE PIC ON THE LANDLINE. THE CTLR WAS VERY UPSET BECAUSE WE HAD TAKEN OFF ON RWY 4 AS OPPOSED TO RWY 22, WHICH WE WERE CLRED FOR. HE FURTHER STATED WE DID NOT DO THE SID. WHILE THERE IS NO PUBLISHED SID, THE LCL IFR CLRNCS ISSUED, REGARDLESS OF RWY, NORMALLY CALLS FOR A L TURN TO A HDG OF 180 DEGS CLBING TO 2000 FT FOR RADAR VECTORS TO THE DEP FIX OFF EITHER RWY. DURING TWR OPERATING HRS SOMETIMES A FLT IS CLRED DIRECT TO BREEZY BY TRACON THROUGH THE TWR WHEN DEPARTING RWY 4. I ASSUMED, RATHER THAN CHALLENGED THE NORM, THAT DIRECT BREEZY WAS GIVEN TO THE PIC ON THE LANDLINE CLRNC. THE CTLR WAS UPSET WITH OUR NOT FOLLOWING THE CLRNC, SINCE, AS HE SAID, IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE FACT IT WAS SO EARLY (TFC LIGHT) WE WOULD HAVE CONFLICTED WITH TEB VOR-A APCHS WHICH PASS OFF THE END OF RWY 4. THE LESSON THAT I LEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE IS THAT CRM CANNOT FUNCTION WHEN 2 PLTS DO NOT HEAR THE CLRNC SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE SECOND PLT IS UNABLE TO CHALLENGE A CLRNC RECEIVED BY THE OTHER PLT OVER A LANDLINE. IN THE ACFT, BOTH PLTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO LISTEN TO ATC COMS SO WE BOTH CAN VERIFY THE CLRNC. WHEN USING A LANDLINE, THE NON COMMUNICATING PLT SHOULD CHALLENGE THE OTHER PLT AS THOUGH THEY WERE IN THE ACFT. THE COMMUNICATING PLT SHOULD BE CHALLENGED AS TO VOID CLRNC TIME, AGREED DEP RWY, RTE, ALTS AND FREQS. ABSENCE OF A CHALLENGE CAN BE DANGEROUS FOR EVERYONE. IN ADDITION, ONE SHOULD NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. I SHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED THE PIC ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE GOING DIRECT AND TURNING TO THE 'NORMAL' 180 DEG HDG.

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.