Narrative:

Aircraft departed ukf on runway 1. Clearance is direct rdu, approximately 110 degree heading. Altitude assignment was 5000 ft. MEA from ukf direct rdu is 4300 ft. Aircraft flew 'runway heading' into 5400 ft MEA. Aircraft not seen on radar until within the 5400 ft MEA. This is becoming a common occurrence at uncontrolled airports. Pilots are so used to being told to 'fly runway heading' that they do it all the time without thinking. This problem is compounded by controllers that are assigning runway of departure and heading to be flown contrary to the 7110.65, thus leading pilots to think it is normal and/or legal. It is not and in this case it was dangerous. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was not aware that an incorrect/inappropriate departure clearance was issued by ATC. In the area of ukf airport, there is a class D, twred airport which departure runway and heading assignment can be assigned. The reporter assumes that this pilot has xferred that knowledge as relevant information to operational criteria at this airport. The reporter is aware that this is incorrect, but the pilot community is 'mixing and matching' rules and regulations. The reporter alleges that he has heard other ZTL controllers 'assign' runways for departure at uncontrolled airports to obtain 'an operational advantage' in coordinating, or avoiding coordination with adjoining delegated airspace/tracons.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZTL CTLR OBSERVES DEPARTING PA31 FROM UKF (CLASS G) EXECUTE AN INCORRECT DEP PROC TOWARD HIGHER TERRAIN.

Narrative: ACFT DEPARTED UKF ON RWY 1. CLRNC IS DIRECT RDU, APPROX 110 DEG HDG. ALT ASSIGNMENT WAS 5000 FT. MEA FROM UKF DIRECT RDU IS 4300 FT. ACFT FLEW 'RWY HDG' INTO 5400 FT MEA. ACFT NOT SEEN ON RADAR UNTIL WITHIN THE 5400 FT MEA. THIS IS BECOMING A COMMON OCCURRENCE AT UNCTLED ARPTS. PLTS ARE SO USED TO BEING TOLD TO 'FLY RWY HDG' THAT THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME WITHOUT THINKING. THIS PROB IS COMPOUNDED BY CTLRS THAT ARE ASSIGNING RWY OF DEP AND HDG TO BE FLOWN CONTRARY TO THE 7110.65, THUS LEADING PLTS TO THINK IT IS NORMAL AND/OR LEGAL. IT IS NOT AND IN THIS CASE IT WAS DANGEROUS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS NOT AWARE THAT AN INCORRECT/INAPPROPRIATE DEP CLRNC WAS ISSUED BY ATC. IN THE AREA OF UKF ARPT, THERE IS A CLASS D, TWRED ARPT WHICH DEP RWY AND HDG ASSIGNMENT CAN BE ASSIGNED. THE RPTR ASSUMES THAT THIS PLT HAS XFERRED THAT KNOWLEDGE AS RELEVANT INFO TO OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AT THIS ARPT. THE RPTR IS AWARE THAT THIS IS INCORRECT, BUT THE PLT COMMUNITY IS 'MIXING AND MATCHING' RULES AND REGS. THE RPTR ALLEGES THAT HE HAS HEARD OTHER ZTL CTLRS 'ASSIGN' RWYS FOR DEP AT UNCTLED ARPTS TO OBTAIN 'AN OPERATIONAL ADVANTAGE' IN COORDINATING, OR AVOIDING COORD WITH ADJOINING DELEGATED AIRSPACE/TRACONS.

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.