Narrative:

Clearance was picked up while on the ground at hpn. Understanding tower was closing soon, tower advised us to use frequency 120.8 upon departure to contact ny control after tower closed. WX was clear, and 4 miles visibility, +10000 ft scattered. Later, while monitoring CTAF, jet traffic started utilizing runway 34 for departure/arrivals, due to a wind shift. Taxi was initiated while making advisory reports on CTAF, no traffic was noted in area, visually or via radio. During taxi, while monitoring CTAF, contact was attempted with ny on 120.8. No contact was made after numerous attempts. Upon reaching runway 34, two more reports were given by us to alert traffic in area, no traffic noted. Wind 290/6. Transponder was left with squawk given for clearance to aide in identifying us to departure control. No traffic identified for runway 34/16 or 11/29. We departed VFR. Upon reaching 1000 ft, traffic was visually identified on approach to runway 16 at a considerable distance away. At this point we were already turning left to a heading of 295 to follow SID. Ny departure was contacted and they turned us to a heading of 260. Ny questioned our departure and why they were not contacted on frequency 126.4. We explained tower told us to use 120.8 on departure. Ny control then said, 'as illustrated on hpn approach charts, we were to use 126.4.' nowhere on airport diagram or departure charts was 126.4 shown. Upon further examination of all charts, later in flight, 126.4 was found, on ILS approach plate. But approach plate states, that 126.4 is to be used on approach and between XA00-XQ00 local, 120.8 is to be used between XQ00-XA00, which is what we were correctly using. At no point was there a danger to either aircraft and no TCAS alert or resolutions were given due to the considerable distance between both aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter reiterated his uncertainty and attempts to assure the correct frequency for departure. He was reassured by clearance delivery regarding the use of the 120.8 even after the tower closed. Attempts to do so prior to takeoff were unsuccessful so, the WX being VFR, they chose to takeoff and contact departure in the air, a perfectly acceptable procedure. They also correctly utilized their assigned transponder code to assist departure in identifying their aircraft. Reporter feels that if the use of a different frequency at times of tower closure is that important to N90 TRACON, the proper identification of that frequency should be clearly indicated and that the frequency should be the contact issued in the IFR clearance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B733, DEPARTING HPN AFTER TWR CLOSED, EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTY CONTACTING N90 DEP DUE TO FREQ CONFUSION. MINOR TFC CONFLICT OCCURRED REQUIRING NO PRECAUTIONARY MANEUVERING.

Narrative: CLRNC WAS PICKED UP WHILE ON THE GND AT HPN. UNDERSTANDING TWR WAS CLOSING SOON, TWR ADVISED US TO USE FREQ 120.8 UPON DEP TO CONTACT NY CTL AFTER TWR CLOSED. WX WAS CLR, AND 4 MILES VIS, +10000 FT SCATTERED. LATER, WHILE MONITORING CTAF, JET TFC STARTED UTILIZING RWY 34 FOR DEP/ARRIVALS, DUE TO A WIND SHIFT. TAXI WAS INITIATED WHILE MAKING ADVISORY RPTS ON CTAF, NO TFC WAS NOTED IN AREA, VISUALLY OR VIA RADIO. DURING TAXI, WHILE MONITORING CTAF, CONTACT WAS ATTEMPTED WITH NY ON 120.8. NO CONTACT WAS MADE AFTER NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS. UPON REACHING RWY 34, TWO MORE RPTS WERE GIVEN BY US TO ALERT TFC IN AREA, NO TFC NOTED. WIND 290/6. TRANSPONDER WAS LEFT WITH SQUAWK GIVEN FOR CLRNC TO AIDE IN IDENTIFYING US TO DEPARTURE CTL. NO TFC IDENTIFIED FOR RWY 34/16 OR 11/29. WE DEPARTED VFR. UPON REACHING 1000 FT, TFC WAS VISUALLY IDENTIFIED ON APCH TO RWY 16 AT A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE AWAY. AT THIS POINT WE WERE ALREADY TURNING LEFT TO A HEADING OF 295 TO FOLLOW SID. NY DEPARTURE WAS CONTACTED AND THEY TURNED US TO A HEADING OF 260. NY QUESTIONED OUR DEP AND WHY THEY WERE NOT CONTACTED ON FREQ 126.4. WE EXPLAINED TWR TOLD US TO USE 120.8 ON DEP. NY CTL THEN SAID, 'AS ILLUSTRATED ON HPN APCH CHARTS, WE WERE TO USE 126.4.' NOWHERE ON ARPT DIAGRAM OR DEP CHARTS WAS 126.4 SHOWN. UPON FURTHER EXAMINATION OF ALL CHARTS, LATER IN FLT, 126.4 WAS FOUND, ON ILS APCH PLATE. BUT APCH PLATE STATES, THAT 126.4 IS TO BE USED ON APCH AND BTWN XA00-XQ00 LOCAL, 120.8 IS TO BE USED BTWN XQ00-XA00, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE CORRECTLY USING. AT NO POINT WAS THERE A DANGER TO EITHER ACFT AND NO TCAS ALERT OR RESOLUTIONS WERE GIVEN DUE TO THE CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE BTWN BOTH ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR REITERATED HIS UNCERTAINTY AND ATTEMPTS TO ASSURE THE CORRECT FREQ FOR DEP. HE WAS REASSURED BY CLRNC DELIVERY REGARDING THE USE OF THE 120.8 EVEN AFTER THE TWR CLOSED. ATTEMPTS TO DO SO PRIOR TO TKOF WERE UNSUCCESSFUL SO, THE WX BEING VFR, THEY CHOSE TO TKOF AND CONTACT DEP IN THE AIR, A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE PROC. THEY ALSO CORRECTLY UTILIZED THEIR ASSIGNED TRANSPONDER CODE TO ASSIST DEP IN IDENTIFYING THEIR ACFT. RPTR FEELS THAT IF THE USE OF A DIFFERENT FREQ AT TIMES OF TWR CLOSURE IS THAT IMPORTANT TO N90 TRACON, THE PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THAT FREQ SHOULD BE CLEARLY INDICATED AND THAT THE FREQ SHOULD BE THE CONTACT ISSUED IN THE IFR CLRNC.

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.