Narrative:

WX was IMC, with 500 ft ceiling. I was assigned the slc 8 departure from slc, departing from runway 35. This procedure actually includes 2 very detailed procedures, a normal procedure, and a lost communications procedure. The normal procedure is fairly simple, requiring you to fly 340 degrees (close to straight out) or assigned heading and expect vectors. The lost communications procedure is more complicated, requiring a left turn to 249 degrees at the wasach VOR, 5 mi from the airport, and entry into a holding pattern. On taking the runway, the controller assigned me a heading of 340 degrees. However, on departing, I mistakenly followed the lost communications procedure. Thus, after departure, I flew 340 degrees to wasach. But upon reaching wasach, instead of continuing straight ahead on the 340 degree heading, I turned left to 249 degrees. This turned me across 2 other runways (runway 34L&right). Luckily, no other aircraft were departing at the time and there was no loss of separation. I believe that this happened because, in the gray light, I failed to see the gray indications on my chart that indicated I was looking at the lost communications procedure instead of the normal procedure. This problem could have been avoided in a number of ways. First, I could have looked more carefully at the chart, or even used cockpit lighting, despite the fact that it was daytime, to make sure I was seeing correctly in the dim light. Second, I should have read the whole chart more carefully. Had I done so, I would have realized that there were 2 procedures set out on the chart, and would then have thought to try to figure out the difference between the two, instead of assuming that there was just one and following it. Third, I should have asked for clarification. When I received the assigned 340 degree heading on taking the runway, I should have asked whether the controller wanted me to fly that heading until wasach, or until I received a different vector. Although I might have felt a little stupid asking about something that seemed obvious, I would have felt less stupid than I did when the controller pointedly asked me why I was turning left. When in doubt -- the slightest doubt -- ask! Also, although commercial chart publisher clearly tried to demarcate the lost communications procedure, they may want to think about ways to do so that will be more apparent in low, gray light. (I understand that they must also do so in a way that does not distract too much, and that gray lettering is a good way to do that.)

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C340 PLT MISREAD THE SALT LAKE SID WHICH CAUSED HIM TO TURN AND CROSS IN FRONT OF RWYS 34L&R AT SLC.

Narrative: WX WAS IMC, WITH 500 FT CEILING. I WAS ASSIGNED THE SLC 8 DEP FROM SLC, DEPARTING FROM RWY 35. THIS PROC ACTUALLY INCLUDES 2 VERY DETAILED PROCS, A NORMAL PROC, AND A LOST COMS PROC. THE NORMAL PROC IS FAIRLY SIMPLE, REQUIRING YOU TO FLY 340 DEGS (CLOSE TO STRAIGHT OUT) OR ASSIGNED HDG AND EXPECT VECTORS. THE LOST COMS PROC IS MORE COMPLICATED, REQUIRING A L TURN TO 249 DEGS AT THE WASACH VOR, 5 MI FROM THE ARPT, AND ENTRY INTO A HOLDING PATTERN. ON TAKING THE RWY, THE CTLR ASSIGNED ME A HDG OF 340 DEGS. HOWEVER, ON DEPARTING, I MISTAKENLY FOLLOWED THE LOST COMS PROC. THUS, AFTER DEP, I FLEW 340 DEGS TO WASACH. BUT UPON REACHING WASACH, INSTEAD OF CONTINUING STRAIGHT AHEAD ON THE 340 DEG HDG, I TURNED L TO 249 DEGS. THIS TURNED ME ACROSS 2 OTHER RWYS (RWY 34L&R). LUCKILY, NO OTHER ACFT WERE DEPARTING AT THE TIME AND THERE WAS NO LOSS OF SEPARATION. I BELIEVE THAT THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE, IN THE GRAY LIGHT, I FAILED TO SEE THE GRAY INDICATIONS ON MY CHART THAT INDICATED I WAS LOOKING AT THE LOST COMS PROC INSTEAD OF THE NORMAL PROC. THIS PROB COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. FIRST, I COULD HAVE LOOKED MORE CAREFULLY AT THE CHART, OR EVEN USED COCKPIT LIGHTING, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS DAYTIME, TO MAKE SURE I WAS SEEING CORRECTLY IN THE DIM LIGHT. SECOND, I SHOULD HAVE READ THE WHOLE CHART MORE CAREFULLY. HAD I DONE SO, I WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THERE WERE 2 PROCS SET OUT ON THE CHART, AND WOULD THEN HAVE THOUGHT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE DIFFERENCE BTWN THE TWO, INSTEAD OF ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS JUST ONE AND FOLLOWING IT. THIRD, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION. WHEN I RECEIVED THE ASSIGNED 340 DEG HDG ON TAKING THE RWY, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED WHETHER THE CTLR WANTED ME TO FLY THAT HDG UNTIL WASACH, OR UNTIL I RECEIVED A DIFFERENT VECTOR. ALTHOUGH I MIGHT HAVE FELT A LITTLE STUPID ASKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT SEEMED OBVIOUS, I WOULD HAVE FELT LESS STUPID THAN I DID WHEN THE CTLR POINTEDLY ASKED ME WHY I WAS TURNING L. WHEN IN DOUBT -- THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT -- ASK! ALSO, ALTHOUGH COMMERCIAL CHART PUBLISHER CLRLY TRIED TO DEMARCATE THE LOST COMS PROC, THEY MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT WAYS TO DO SO THAT WILL BE MORE APPARENT IN LOW, GRAY LIGHT. (I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MUST ALSO DO SO IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT DISTRACT TOO MUCH, AND THAT GRAY LETTERING IS A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT.)

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.