Narrative:

The first officer prepared the aircraft, to include obtaining the IFR clearance and programming the 'vintage' laser-navigation FMS, which requires the entry of each waypoint as the database does not contain SID/stars. He had in his possession a flight plan printout which specified the routing I had filed. This route included the las vegas 2 departure procedure. In the yoke chart holder he had the las vegas 1 departure procedure. When he read back the clearance he read back las vegas 1 departure procedure. The passenger arrived, were loaded, and we started the checklist. The first officer handed me the vegas 1 departure procedure, and made a comment that ATC had cleared us as filed, with the exception of changing the departure procedure to the vegas 1, which he had loaded, and handed me the vegas 1 departure procedure. I briefed the approach, and we completed the checklists and taxied. Shortly after takeoff we were handed off to las vegas departure, and the controller queried us as to our heading. We advised 'runway heading' as this was called for in the vegas 1 departure procedure. The controller responded that we should be on a 215 degree heading as the vegas 2 departure procedure called for. The first officer then looked for the vegas 2 departure procedure and responded he was unable to find it. I then loaded the vegas 2 departure procedure waypoints from the flight plan printout, and we continued the departure. Upon reaching cruise, I questioned the first officer as to the error. He stated that he 'thought' he had both charts (vegas 1 and vegas 2 departure procedures). Further, he stated that when he received the clearance the controller gave him the vegas 1 departure procedure, and he read it back that way. Checking further, I determined the first officer had retrieved the q-svc update for mccarren international, and when posting them apparently reinserted the old charts and threw the revised material away. He was under the assumption that the las vegas 1 departure procedure was the current chart when he received the clearance and may not have caught the phrase 'las vegas 2' when stated by clearance delivery. As he was getting somewhat flustered at this point I thought it best not to press the issue at that time. I should have detected the potential for a conflict when he advised me clearance delivery had changed the departure procedure from the 'vegas 2' to the 'vegas 1.' I am fully aware the numerical value assigned to the departure procedure is a revision number. Failing to catch this, the failure was mine. Contributing, I suspect the first officer may have disposed of the current material when he posted the q-svc change, resulting in our being in possession of the outdated departure procedure, so that when he read back the clearance he was looking at the outdated departure procedure and read back as such. Unfortunately the controller also did not catch the error in the readback. Also pertinent is the fact that we were not in the 'normal mode' in preparing for this flight due to the compressed time frame in which we were trying to operate in order to facilitate the early departure requested by the passenger. The first officer and I discussed this in detail at the conclusion of the flight, and have undoubtedly learned a valuable lesson regarding caution about deviating from standard procedures, and remembering that if something seems wrong it most likely is.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: G159 FLT CREW FLIES WRONG SID DEPARTING LAS.

Narrative: THE FO PREPARED THE ACFT, TO INCLUDE OBTAINING THE IFR CLRNC AND PROGRAMMING THE 'VINTAGE' LASER-NAV FMS, WHICH REQUIRES THE ENTRY OF EACH WAYPOINT AS THE DATABASE DOES NOT CONTAIN SID/STARS. HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION A FLT PLAN PRINTOUT WHICH SPECIFIED THE ROUTING I HAD FILED. THIS RTE INCLUDED THE LAS VEGAS 2 DEP PROC. IN THE YOKE CHART HOLDER HE HAD THE LAS VEGAS 1 DEP PROC. WHEN HE READ BACK THE CLRNC HE READ BACK LAS VEGAS 1 DEP PROC. THE PAX ARRIVED, WERE LOADED, AND WE STARTED THE CHKLIST. THE FO HANDED ME THE VEGAS 1 DEP PROC, AND MADE A COMMENT THAT ATC HAD CLRED US AS FILED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGING THE DEP PROC TO THE VEGAS 1, WHICH HE HAD LOADED, AND HANDED ME THE VEGAS 1 DEP PROC. I BRIEFED THE APCH, AND WE COMPLETED THE CHKLISTS AND TAXIED. SHORTLY AFTER TKOF WE WERE HANDED OFF TO LAS VEGAS DEP, AND THE CTLR QUERIED US AS TO OUR HEADING. WE ADVISED 'RWY HEADING' AS THIS WAS CALLED FOR IN THE VEGAS 1 DEP PROC. THE CTLR RESPONDED THAT WE SHOULD BE ON A 215 DEG HDG AS THE VEGAS 2 DEP PROC CALLED FOR. THE FO THEN LOOKED FOR THE VEGAS 2 DEP PROC AND RESPONDED HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND IT. I THEN LOADED THE VEGAS 2 DEP PROC WAYPOINTS FROM THE FLT PLAN PRINTOUT, AND WE CONTINUED THE DEP. UPON REACHING CRUISE, I QUESTIONED THE FO AS TO THE ERROR. HE STATED THAT HE 'THOUGHT' HE HAD BOTH CHARTS (VEGAS 1 AND VEGAS 2 DEP PROCS). FURTHER, HE STATED THAT WHEN HE RECEIVED THE CLRNC THE CTLR GAVE HIM THE VEGAS 1 DEP PROC, AND HE READ IT BACK THAT WAY. CHKING FURTHER, I DETERMINED THE FO HAD RETRIEVED THE Q-SVC UPDATE FOR MCCARREN INTL, AND WHEN POSTING THEM APPARENTLY REINSERTED THE OLD CHARTS AND THREW THE REVISED MATERIAL AWAY. HE WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE LAS VEGAS 1 DEP PROC WAS THE CURRENT CHART WHEN HE RECEIVED THE CLRNC AND MAY NOT HAVE CAUGHT THE PHRASE 'LAS VEGAS 2' WHEN STATED BY CLRNC DELIVERY. AS HE WAS GETTING SOMEWHAT FLUSTERED AT THIS POINT I THOUGHT IT BEST NOT TO PRESS THE ISSUE AT THAT TIME. I SHOULD HAVE DETECTED THE POTENTIAL FOR A CONFLICT WHEN HE ADVISED ME CLRNC DELIVERY HAD CHANGED THE DEP PROC FROM THE 'VEGAS 2' TO THE 'VEGAS 1.' I AM FULLY AWARE THE NUMERICAL VALUE ASSIGNED TO THE DEP PROC IS A REVISION NUMBER. FAILING TO CATCH THIS, THE FAILURE WAS MINE. CONTRIBUTING, I SUSPECT THE FO MAY HAVE DISPOSED OF THE CURRENT MATERIAL WHEN HE POSTED THE Q-SVC CHANGE, RESULTING IN OUR BEING IN POSSESSION OF THE OUTDATED DEP PROC, SO THAT WHEN HE READ BACK THE CLRNC HE WAS LOOKING AT THE OUTDATED DEP PROC AND READ BACK AS SUCH. UNFORTUNATELY THE CTLR ALSO DID NOT CATCH THE ERROR IN THE READBACK. ALSO PERTINENT IS THE FACT THAT WE WERE NOT IN THE 'NORMAL MODE' IN PREPARING FOR THIS FLT DUE TO THE COMPRESSED TIME FRAME IN WHICH WE WERE TRYING TO OPERATE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE EARLY DEP REQUESTED BY THE PAX. THE FO AND I DISCUSSED THIS IN DETAIL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FLT, AND HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON REGARDING CAUTION ABOUT DEVIATING FROM STANDARD PROCS, AND REMEMBERING THAT IF SOMETHING SEEMS WRONG IT MOST LIKELY IS.

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.