Narrative:

I departed petersburg, ak, en route to juneau, ak. I used runway 22 with a VFR right downwind departure and then proceeded IFR to juneau. In subsequent discussions with fellow pilots, I discovered that I inadvertently departed psg for jnu contrary to our company operation policy listed in the 10-7's for psg (runway 22 right downwind departure's not authorized). With the VFR WX, the first officer and I agreed that a departure into the southwest wind of approximately 7 KTS was the best direction to go based on our takeoff weight. We verified that we had required WX and that we would follow the obstacle departure procedure on the back of the psg 11-1 commercial approach chart. Although the chart calls for a right downwind departure, our company has determined that we should not make this departure. In the future, I will make sure I review all information available and I have also recommended that we remove that obstacle departure note and add one that says 'runway 22 right downwind departure not authorized.' supplemental information from acn 562644: at this particular airport, every previous IFR departure which I had been a part of involved departing runway 4 and intercepting the lda course while tracking it outbound. The airport is surrounded by mountains on three sides, but has an open area over the water which allows for an lda approach and also an IFR departure over the reciprocal course. This departure is exactly described in the obstacle clearance departure procedure on the back of the commercial approach plate 11-1. Although I had doubts and concerns about this departure due to the terrain, which presented a formidable challenge to a runway 22 right downwind departure, and not having previously done this particular departure, I did not challenge the captain's proposed course of action as he has had many yrs of experience operating in and out of this airport, and the good VFR conditions ensure that terrain clearance could be unequivocally determined. We both felt that such a procedure could present a big problem for an air carrier crew when prevailing IMC conditions exist. In summary, it is my opinion that the situation occurred due to several contributing factors. One of the most important factors which led to the departure, I believe, was that the 11-1 plate did not prohibit the departure for air carrier turbo jet aircraft. And this was the procedure which we followed. The second contributing factor was that we did not take the time, prior takeoff, to properly review the notes in the company 10-7 pages, which would have alerted us to the fact that this particular departure procedure was not authorized. A third contributing factor was that I, the non-flying pilot, did not communicate my concerns to the captain about never having done this procedure before. I will now also propose to not hesitate to question a captain's decision, regardless of his experience level or familiarity with airports, operations and procedures. A final corrective action that would prevent a repeat of this event would be to eliminate the conflict between the commercial 11-1 runway 22 departure procedure and our company 10-7 runway 22 departure note.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CFIT BY A B737-200 FLC DURING AN ILLEGAL SW DEP, R DOWNWIND DEP OFF OF RWY 22 AT PSG, AK.

Narrative: I DEPARTED PETERSBURG, AK, ENRTE TO JUNEAU, AK. I USED RWY 22 WITH A VFR R DOWNWIND DEP AND THEN PROCEEDED IFR TO JUNEAU. IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS WITH FELLOW PLTS, I DISCOVERED THAT I INADVERTENTLY DEPARTED PSG FOR JNU CONTRARY TO OUR COMPANY OP POLICY LISTED IN THE 10-7'S FOR PSG (RWY 22 R DOWNWIND DEP'S NOT AUTHORIZED). WITH THE VFR WX, THE FO AND I AGREED THAT A DEP INTO THE SW WIND OF APPROX 7 KTS WAS THE BEST DIRECTION TO GO BASED ON OUR TKOF WEIGHT. WE VERIFIED THAT WE HAD REQUIRED WX AND THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW THE OBSTACLE DEP PROC ON THE BACK OF THE PSG 11-1 COMMERCIAL APCH CHART. ALTHOUGH THE CHART CALLS FOR A R DOWNWIND DEP, OUR COMPANY HAS DETERMINED THAT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THIS DEP. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL MAKE SURE I REVIEW ALL INFO AVAILABLE AND I HAVE ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT WE REMOVE THAT OBSTACLE DEP NOTE AND ADD ONE THAT SAYS 'RWY 22 R DOWNWIND DEP NOT AUTHORIZED.' SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 562644: AT THIS PARTICULAR ARPT, EVERY PREVIOUS IFR DEP WHICH I HAD BEEN A PART OF INVOLVED DEPARTING RWY 4 AND INTERCEPTING THE LDA COURSE WHILE TRACKING IT OUTBOUND. THE ARPT IS SURROUNDED BY MOUNTAINS ON THREE SIDES, BUT HAS AN OPEN AREA OVER THE WATER WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN LDA APCH AND ALSO AN IFR DEP OVER THE RECIPROCAL COURSE. THIS DEPARTURE IS EXACTLY DESCRIBED IN THE OBSTACLE CLRNC DEP PROC ON THE BACK OF THE COMMERCIAL APCH PLATE 11-1. ALTHOUGH I HAD DOUBTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DEP DUE TO THE TERRAIN, WHICH PRESENTED A FORMIDABLE CHALLENGE TO A RWY 22 R DOWNWIND DEP, AND NOT HAVING PREVIOUSLY DONE THIS PARTICULAR DEP, I DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CAPT'S PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION AS HE HAS HAD MANY YRS OF EXPERIENCE OPERATING IN AND OUT OF THIS ARPT, AND THE GOOD VFR CONDITIONS ENSURE THAT TERRAIN CLRNC COULD BE UNEQUIVOCALLY DETERMINED. WE BOTH FELT THAT SUCH A PROC COULD PRESENT A BIG PROB FOR AN ACR CREW WHEN PREVAILING IMC CONDITIONS EXIST. IN SUMMARY, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE SIT OCCURRED DUE TO SEVERAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS WHICH LED TO THE DEP, I BELIEVE, WAS THAT THE 11-1 PLATE DID NOT PROHIBIT THE DEP FOR ACR TURBO JET ACFT. AND THIS WAS THE PROC WHICH WE FOLLOWED. THE SECOND CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT WE DID NOT TAKE THE TIME, PRIOR TKOF, TO PROPERLY REVIEW THE NOTES IN THE COMPANY 10-7 PAGES, WHICH WOULD HAVE ALERTED US TO THE FACT THAT THIS PARTICULAR DEP PROC WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. A THIRD CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT I, THE NON-FLYING PLT, DID NOT COMMUNICATE MY CONCERNS TO THE CAPT ABOUT NEVER HAVING DONE THIS PROC BEFORE. I WILL NOW ALSO PROPOSE TO NOT HESITATE TO QUESTION A CAPT'S DECISION, REGARDLESS OF HIS EXPERIENCE LEVEL OR FAMILIARITY WITH ARPTS, OPERATIONS AND PROCS. A FINAL CORRECTIVE ACTION THAT WOULD PREVENT A REPEAT OF THIS EVENT WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL 11-1 RWY 22 DEP PROC AND OUR COMPANY 10-7 RWY 22 DEP NOTE.

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.