Narrative:

During a flight on nov/sun/03, while departing from las off runway 19R, and in the initial climb segment, we were advised to turned to a 235 degree heading to join the bdc 213 degree radial as our initial heading of 175 degrees was incorrect. After this, we were asked to contact ATC, by phone, when we reached our destination. Upon talking with this person, I explained what I perceived to be the breakdown in the communication process that took us off course. While receiving our clearance, we were given the boach 1 departure, hector transition to sna. I advised clearance we were not in possession of that departure and asked for a clarification as to what or where that departure went, and if another departure had similar waypoints in it. He said it was a new IFR departure and that it had no common intxns that could be used from another SID. I then asked him what alternate route or procedure we should use. His response was to just climb and maintain 7000 ft. We assumed this clearance would be relayed to the tower and departure control as we were expecting a vector or new route from them. As we took the runway, we asked the tower for a heading. His response was just fly the departure. At that point, we were in the takeoff roll. The FMS was set up with the boach 1 departure, but I was somewhat leary of its accuracy without having the paper SID in front of me to compare it to. In any event, boach intersection was up there with a course line to it. I turned to 175 degrees to join it and the PNF asked for a heading again. When they asked what heading we were on, we told them 175 degrees, and they said to turn to 235 degrees to join bdc 213 degrees, and also asked if we had any route given to us, which we responded that we were given boach 1, but didn't have it. In the conclusion, after examining a boach 1 departure in detail, we noticed a much more complex and busy departure than was displayed on our FMS. The absence of a runway in the FMS deleted a host of intxns that were required to fly the departure correctly. In retrospect, I should not have accepted such an ambiguous clearance. I should have reiterated to the tower we were not in possession of the boach 1. I should have entered runway 9R into the FMS. I should have had the chart.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: H25B CREW WAS GIVEN A NEW SID THAT THE CREW DID NOT HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION. THEY HAD A TRACK DEV BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE SID AND TRIED TO FOLLOW THE MOVING MAP DISPLAY.

Narrative: DURING A FLT ON NOV/SUN/03, WHILE DEPARTING FROM LAS OFF RWY 19R, AND IN THE INITIAL CLB SEGMENT, WE WERE ADVISED TO TURNED TO A 235 DEG HDG TO JOIN THE BDC 213 DEG RADIAL AS OUR INITIAL HEADING OF 175 DEGS WAS INCORRECT. AFTER THIS, WE WERE ASKED TO CONTACT ATC, BY PHONE, WHEN WE REACHED OUR DEST. UPON TALKING WITH THIS PERSON, I EXPLAINED WHAT I PERCEIVED TO BE THE BREAKDOWN IN THE COM PROCESS THAT TOOK US OFF COURSE. WHILE RECEIVING OUR CLRNC, WE WERE GIVEN THE BOACH 1 DEP, HECTOR TRANSITION TO SNA. I ADVISED CLRNC WE WERE NOT IN POSSESSION OF THAT DEP AND ASKED FOR A CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT OR WHERE THAT DEP WENT, AND IF ANOTHER DEP HAD SIMILAR WAYPOINTS IN IT. HE SAID IT WAS A NEW IFR DEP AND THAT IT HAD NO COMMON INTXNS THAT COULD BE USED FROM ANOTHER SID. I THEN ASKED HIM WHAT ALTERNATE RTE OR PROC WE SHOULD USE. HIS RESPONSE WAS TO JUST CLB AND MAINTAIN 7000 FT. WE ASSUMED THIS CLRNC WOULD BE RELAYED TO THE TWR AND DEP CTL AS WE WERE EXPECTING A VECTOR OR NEW RTE FROM THEM. AS WE TOOK THE RWY, WE ASKED THE TWR FOR A HEADING. HIS RESPONSE WAS JUST FLY THE DEP. AT THAT POINT, WE WERE IN THE TKOF ROLL. THE FMS WAS SET UP WITH THE BOACH 1 DEP, BUT I WAS SOMEWHAT LEARY OF ITS ACCURACY WITHOUT HAVING THE PAPER SID IN FRONT OF ME TO COMPARE IT TO. IN ANY EVENT, BOACH INTXN WAS UP THERE WITH A COURSE LINE TO IT. I TURNED TO 175 DEGS TO JOIN IT AND THE PNF ASKED FOR A HEADING AGAIN. WHEN THEY ASKED WHAT HEADING WE WERE ON, WE TOLD THEM 175 DEGS, AND THEY SAID TO TURN TO 235 DEGS TO JOIN BDC 213 DEGS, AND ALSO ASKED IF WE HAD ANY RTE GIVEN TO US, WHICH WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE GIVEN BOACH 1, BUT DIDN'T HAVE IT. IN THE CONCLUSION, AFTER EXAMINING A BOACH 1 DEP IN DETAIL, WE NOTICED A MUCH MORE COMPLEX AND BUSY DEP THAN WAS DISPLAYED ON OUR FMS. THE ABSENCE OF A RWY IN THE FMS DELETED A HOST OF INTXNS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO FLY THE DEP CORRECTLY. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED SUCH AN AMBIGUOUS CLRNC. I SHOULD HAVE REITERATED TO THE TWR WE WERE NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE BOACH 1. I SHOULD HAVE ENTERED RWY 9R INTO THE FMS. I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE CHART.

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.