Narrative:

Our departure clearance from saf was; 'cleared direct gallup (gup); as filed; expect FL430; expect altitude assignment upon release.' saf is a non-radar facility. The clearance was a little unusual in that we were cleared direct to gup. I did talk to the issuing controller at sometime; either at this time or later; about departure procedures. There was a ziase two departure printed which I was referencing but at the time of our discussion it was apparently not available because of no radar. I checked terrain clearance; all of our available charts; and decided that upon our departure on runway 20; unless we heard anything else we would depart straight out to intercept the saf 255 radial. I discussed this with the co pilot and he was in agreement. This is basically what the ziase departure consists of. This was our first mistake. Somehow I felt we were given carte blanche on how to position the aircraft to proceed direct to gup. Really the controller meant what he said; cleared direct to gup. We felt our confusion was cleared up and both pilots agreed that what we were planning to do was right. After engine start and after requesting the taxi clearance the local ground controller asked if we were going to go to saf VOR and then proceeded to direct to gup or are we just going to provide our own terrain clearance. This was very confusing for us at a busy time. We were beginning our taxi at an unfamiliar airport at night; discussing engine anti-ice use; working the checklist and now trying to allay any confusion on our part about exactly what kind of departure clearance we had accepted. It was at this time we should have said that we would go to saf VOR first and then proceed. But again the confusion began to clear because we felt that it was our choice on how to get on course to gup. We said that we would provide our own terrain clearance and this seem to vindicate for us our straight out departure from runway 20 to pick up the 255 radial from saf. (Additionally; the standard obstacle clearance for runway 20 is turn left direct to saf VOR and climb in a holding pattern to cross saf at or above the airway MEA. Had we chosen this procedure we would not have had to enter a holding pattern because we would have been above the MEA very shortly after takeoff.) upon our departure our altitude clearance was given as 13000 ft and by stating that we would provide our own terrain clearance we felt that using what amounted to the ziase departure would ensure us of terrain clearance. After departure we were turned over to abq center and he questioned us on going so far south before turning direct to gup. Now the confusion for us really set in. We had in fact gone out of our airspace in proceeding so far south. We discussed the situation with the controller and we realized that we really did not understand our departure clearance. Apparently; so now we understood; that because of no radar at saf the ziase departure was not available. We are still not clear on that point. The other pilot and I discussed the situation all the way to the destination. This is what we decided: 1) the clearance delivery controller should have asked us if we were going to go to saf VOR first or provide our own terrain clearance upon departure. This could have led us to question our clearance more closely at a time that for us was not busy and we had the opportunity to iron out any misunderstanding or confusion then. 2) I should have questioned the controller upon clearance receipt as to how or what was the best way or the accepted way to proceed to gup direct. There was something unsettling about the clearance that I could have cleared up at this time. But honestly; I thought we would be given an additional clearance; something like proceed to intercept the saf 255 radial to gup when we were given our altitude assignment. Probably impossible since there is no radar. 3) we didn't put enough time into investigating our departure after ground control asked how we were going to proceed to gup. We stated that we would provide our own terrain clearance (as opposed to going to saf first) deciding beforehand that we would go straight out on departure before turning direct to gup. After this conversation with the controller it reinforced our feeling that how we were going to departure was correct. 4) our best course of action would have been to proceed to saf first and then direct to gup. Our clearance was direct to gup but we did not go directly to gup after departure; we went straight out for a little while and then enter a shallow turn right to proceed direct to gup. The abq controller didn't mind how we planned doing it he just wanted to know beforehand how we planned to do it. We just went too far south of the airport before turning on course to gup. Quite honestly it was a very confusing clearance and departure for us. We still don't know if we understand everything about it. There was a perfectly good ziase two departure that we couldn't get or didn't get. Why? Should we have specifically asked for it? If the tower had been closed and we were forced to get our departure clearance over the phone for example we would have unhesitatingly performed the standard departure for runway 20. But the controller gave us a clearance that said direct to gup. It said nothing about proceeding direct to saf and then the saf 255 radial to gup. If the controller had given us a clearance that said proceed to saf first all would have worked out well. If he had asked us when we picked up our clearance if we were planning to go to saf or are we going to provide our own terrain clearance we would have been able to delve into the clearance more deeply instead of during taxi when we were busy. If we had realized that 'cleared direct to gup' means exactly go direct to gup from saf the problem would have been avoided. Our feeling was that we were given somewhat carte blanche in deciding how best to assure our own terrain clearance. And we were. Abq center just needed to know about it beforehand. The way the clearance was presented to us; the cleared direct; the altitude assignment would come later; the decision to make about how we were going to get to gup at a busy time; and the fact that we did not think about violating any airspace upon departure led to confusion and misunderstanding on our part. The fact that the ground controller asked us if we were going direct to saf first made us feel as if the route from saf to gup was protected and my feeling was that the controller really wanted to know if we were going to depart straight out or turn left to saf for local traffic control purposes only. It seemed as if something was there or not there that was leading to our confusion. Unfortunately; for some reason; every time we talked to a controller we felt even more strongly that what we were doing was correct.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter indicated that the local controller seemed confused as to what was issued for the departure clearance. He stated that they told the local controller that they would maintain their own terrain clearance and proceed on the ziase departure. After takeoff it was pointed out that the ZIASE2.ziase departure required radar coverage to be issued and flown and that there was no radar at that time. Reporter was concerned that the departure plate does not have 'radar required' listed. Additionally; he felt the local controller should have issued a specific departure; vice direct gup. The reporter felt that considering the terrain at night that some specific clearance should have been issued. Whether it was the obstacle or some other terrain clearance departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GULFSTREAM G-IV FLT CREW EXPERIENCES CLRNC AND DEP PROCEDURE CONFUSION DEPARTING SAF.

Narrative: OUR DEP CLRNC FROM SAF WAS; 'CLRED DIRECT GALLUP (GUP); AS FILED; EXPECT FL430; EXPECT ALT ASSIGNMENT UPON RELEASE.' SAF IS A NON-RADAR FACILITY. THE CLRNC WAS A LITTLE UNUSUAL IN THAT WE WERE CLRED DIRECT TO GUP. I DID TALK TO THE ISSUING CTLR AT SOMETIME; EITHER AT THIS TIME OR LATER; ABOUT DEP PROCS. THERE WAS A ZIASE TWO DEP PRINTED WHICH I WAS REFERENCING BUT AT THE TIME OF OUR DISCUSSION IT WAS APPARENTLY NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF NO RADAR. I CHKED TERRAIN CLRNC; ALL OF OUR AVAILABLE CHARTS; AND DECIDED THAT UPON OUR DEP ON RWY 20; UNLESS WE HEARD ANYTHING ELSE WE WOULD DEPART STRAIGHT OUT TO INTERCEPT THE SAF 255 RADIAL. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE CO PLT AND HE WAS IN AGREEMENT. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE ZIASE DEP CONSISTS OF. THIS WAS OUR FIRST MISTAKE. SOMEHOW I FELT WE WERE GIVEN CARTE BLANCHE ON HOW TO POSITION THE ACFT TO PROCEED DIRECT TO GUP. REALLY THE CTLR MEANT WHAT HE SAID; CLRED DIRECT TO GUP. WE FELT OUR CONFUSION WAS CLRED UP AND BOTH PLTS AGREED THAT WHAT WE WERE PLANNING TO DO WAS RIGHT. AFTER ENG START AND AFTER REQUESTING THE TAXI CLRNC THE LCL GND CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE GOING TO GO TO SAF VOR AND THEN PROCEEDED TO DIRECT TO GUP OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO PROVIDE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC. THIS WAS VERY CONFUSING FOR US AT A BUSY TIME. WE WERE BEGINNING OUR TAXI AT AN UNFAMILIAR ARPT AT NIGHT; DISCUSSING ENG ANTI-ICE USE; WORKING THE CHKLIST AND NOW TRYING TO ALLAY ANY CONFUSION ON OUR PART ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF DEP CLRNC WE HAD ACCEPTED. IT WAS AT THIS TIME WE SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT WE WOULD GO TO SAF VOR FIRST AND THEN PROCEED. BUT AGAIN THE CONFUSION BEGAN TO CLR BECAUSE WE FELT THAT IT WAS OUR CHOICE ON HOW TO GET ON COURSE TO GUP. WE SAID THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC AND THIS SEEM TO VINDICATE FOR US OUR STRAIGHT OUT DEP FROM RWY 20 TO PICK UP THE 255 RADIAL FROM SAF. (ADDITIONALLY; THE STANDARD OBSTACLE CLRNC FOR RWY 20 IS TURN LEFT DIRECT TO SAF VOR AND CLB IN A HOLDING PATTERN TO CROSS SAF AT OR ABOVE THE AIRWAY MEA. HAD WE CHOSEN THIS PROC WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO ENTER A HOLDING PATTERN BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOVE THE MEA VERY SHORTLY AFTER TKOF.) UPON OUR DEP OUR ALT CLRNC WAS GIVEN AS 13000 FT AND BY STATING THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC WE FELT THAT USING WHAT AMOUNTED TO THE ZIASE DEP WOULD ENSURE US OF TERRAIN CLRNC. AFTER DEP WE WERE TURNED OVER TO ABQ CTR AND HE QUESTIONED US ON GOING SO FAR SOUTH BEFORE TURNING DIRECT TO GUP. NOW THE CONFUSION FOR US REALLY SET IN. WE HAD IN FACT GONE OUT OF OUR AIRSPACE IN PROCEEDING SO FAR SOUTH. WE DISCUSSED THE SITUATION WITH THE CTLR AND WE REALIZED THAT WE REALLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND OUR DEP CLRNC. APPARENTLY; SO NOW WE UNDERSTOOD; THAT BECAUSE OF NO RADAR AT SAF THE ZIASE DEP WAS NOT AVAILABLE. WE ARE STILL NOT CLR ON THAT POINT. THE OTHER PLT AND I DISCUSSED THE SITUATION ALL THE WAY TO THE DEST. THIS IS WHAT WE DECIDED: 1) THE CLRNC DELIVERY CTLR SHOULD HAVE ASKED US IF WE WERE GOING TO GO TO SAF VOR FIRST OR PROVIDE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC UPON DEP. THIS COULD HAVE LED US TO QUESTION OUR CLRNC MORE CLOSELY AT A TIME THAT FOR US WAS NOT BUSY AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO IRON OUT ANY MISUNDERSTANDING OR CONFUSION THEN. 2) I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CTLR UPON CLRNC RECEIPT AS TO HOW OR WHAT WAS THE BEST WAY OR THE ACCEPTED WAY TO PROCEED TO GUP DIRECT. THERE WAS SOMETHING UNSETTLING ABOUT THE CLRNC THAT I COULD HAVE CLRED UP AT THIS TIME. BUT HONESTLY; I THOUGHT WE WOULD BE GIVEN AN ADDITIONAL CLRNC; SOMETHING LIKE PROCEED TO INTERCEPT THE SAF 255 RADIAL TO GUP WHEN WE WERE GIVEN OUR ALT ASSIGNMENT. PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE SINCE THERE IS NO RADAR. 3) WE DIDN'T PUT ENOUGH TIME INTO INVESTIGATING OUR DEP AFTER GND CTL ASKED HOW WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED TO GUP. WE STATED THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC (AS OPPOSED TO GOING TO SAF FIRST) DECIDING BEFOREHAND THAT WE WOULD GO STRAIGHT OUT ON DEP BEFORE TURNING DIRECT TO GUP. AFTER THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE CTLR IT REINFORCED OUR FEELING THAT HOW WE WERE GOING TO DEP WAS CORRECT. 4) OUR BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO PROCEED TO SAF FIRST AND THEN DIRECT TO GUP. OUR CLRNC WAS DIRECT TO GUP BUT WE DID NOT GO DIRECTLY TO GUP AFTER DEP; WE WENT STRAIGHT OUT FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN ENTER A SHALLOW TURN RIGHT TO PROCEED DIRECT TO GUP. THE ABQ CTLR DIDN'T MIND HOW WE PLANNED DOING IT HE JUST WANTED TO KNOW BEFOREHAND HOW WE PLANNED TO DO IT. WE JUST WENT TOO FAR SOUTH OF THE ARPT BEFORE TURNING ON COURSE TO GUP. QUITE HONESTLY IT WAS A VERY CONFUSING CLRNC AND DEP FOR US. WE STILL DON'T KNOW IF WE UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. THERE WAS A PERFECTLY GOOD ZIASE TWO DEP THAT WE COULDN'T GET OR DIDN'T GET. WHY? SHOULD WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IT? IF THE TWR HAD BEEN CLOSED AND WE WERE FORCED TO GET OUR DEP CLRNC OVER THE PHONE FOR EXAMPLE WE WOULD HAVE UNHESITATINGLY PERFORMED THE STANDARD DEP FOR RWY 20. BUT THE CTLR GAVE US A CLRNC THAT SAID DIRECT TO GUP. IT SAID NOTHING ABOUT PROCEEDING DIRECT TO SAF AND THEN THE SAF 255 RADIAL TO GUP. IF THE CTLR HAD GIVEN US A CLRNC THAT SAID PROCEED TO SAF FIRST ALL WOULD HAVE WORKED OUT WELL. IF HE HAD ASKED US WHEN WE PICKED UP OUR CLRNC IF WE WERE PLANNING TO GO TO SAF OR ARE WE GOING TO PROVIDE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DELVE INTO THE CLRNC MORE DEEPLY INSTEAD OF DURING TAXI WHEN WE WERE BUSY. IF WE HAD REALIZED THAT 'CLRED DIRECT TO GUP' MEANS EXACTLY GO DIRECT TO GUP FROM SAF THE PROB WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. OUR FEELING WAS THAT WE WERE GIVEN SOMEWHAT CARTE BLANCHE IN DECIDING HOW BEST TO ASSURE OUR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC. AND WE WERE. ABQ CTR JUST NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND. THE WAY THE CLRNC WAS PRESENTED TO US; THE CLRED DIRECT; THE ALT ASSIGNMENT WOULD COME LATER; THE DECISION TO MAKE ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO GET TO GUP AT A BUSY TIME; AND THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT THINK ABOUT VIOLATING ANY AIRSPACE UPON DEP LED TO CONFUSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING ON OUR PART. THE FACT THAT THE GND CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE GOING DIRECT TO SAF FIRST MADE US FEEL AS IF THE RTE FROM SAF TO GUP WAS PROTECTED AND MY FEELING WAS THAT THE CTLR REALLY WANTED TO KNOW IF WE WERE GOING TO DEPART STRAIGHT OUT OR TURN LEFT TO SAF FOR LCL TFC CTL PURPOSES ONLY. IT SEEMED AS IF SOMETHING WAS THERE OR NOT THERE THAT WAS LEADING TO OUR CONFUSION. UNFORTUNATELY; FOR SOME REASON; EVERY TIME WE TALKED TO A CTLR WE FELT EVEN MORE STRONGLY THAT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS CORRECT.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR INDICATED THAT THE LCL CTLR SEEMED CONFUSED AS TO WHAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE DEP CLRNC. HE STATED THAT THEY TOLD THE LCL CTLR THAT THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR OWN TERRAIN CLRNC AND PROCEED ON THE ZIASE DEP. AFTER TKOF IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ZIASE2.ZIASE DEP REQUIRED RADAR COVERAGE TO BE ISSUED AND FLOWN AND THAT THERE WAS NO RADAR AT THAT TIME. RPTR WAS CONCERNED THAT THE DEP PLATE DOES NOT HAVE 'RADAR REQUIRED' LISTED. ADDITIONALLY; HE FELT THE LCL CTLR SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A SPECIFIC DEP; VICE DIRECT GUP. THE RPTR FELT THAT CONSIDERING THE TERRAIN AT NIGHT THAT SOME SPECIFIC CLRNC SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED. WHETHER IT WAS THE OBSTACLE OR SOME OTHER TERRAIN CLRNC DEP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.