Narrative:

My trip was IFR tower en route; which was not a choice (but should be) in section 'flight plan' above. Clearance delivery included a departure procedure on the phone: climb runway heading at least 670 ft/mi to 300 ft; then climbing left turn to 235 degrees to 1500 ft; then direct ocn VOR. I was then to follow SANN15 tower en route. I had just taken off okb runway 24 and was beginning to follow the obstacle departure procedure. I contacted ATC and was told after a moment to turn direct ocn VOR. I began that turn. ATC then assigned that turn to a different aircraft (not one that had just taken off from okb; I was the only active airplane at okb); and told me to go back to my original departure procedure (thereby abrogating their immediately-previous directive to fly direct ocn). I began to consult my written departure procedure; check my altitude; and determined that I should be on the 240 degree heading; climbing. I began to change to this vector. While figuring all of this out; ATC pointed out that I did not appear to be climbing; and they gave me a vector. I then confirmed that they wanted me to climb to 3000 ft. I followed their vector and climb instructions. So far; that sounds pretty simple. But there is a procedural problem inherent in ATC's handling of my flight that I feel should be changed immediately. That's the main reason I'm writing this report. When a pilot is following an IFR procedure; and ATC changes it by providing; e.g.; a vector different from the anticipated procedure; the pilot's job is to immediately follow ATC's instructions (unless dangerous; etc). This implies virtual immediate abandonment of whatever else one was expecting to do since ATC's rules have just changed. As a psychologist; I would describe this phenomenon as a required shift in set. In the presently-described situation; when ATC had me go direct ocn; I abandoned my departure procedure; essentially 'throwing it away;' as I turned to fly direct ocn. Here's the problem: when ATC told me to go back to the departure procedure; I had to take time and precious attention to review the entire departure procedure; compare it with my instruments and position in space; and then adjust. What would have been significantly better and safer would have been if ATC had just given me the vector they wanted; e.g.; 'fly heading 240; climb to 1500; then go direct ocn VOR.' it was the shift in 'set' that created an attentional pause and led me to pay inadequate attention to my altitude. This is not an excuse; rather; it is a procedural issue. I would have been much more likely to have maintained the proper climb if I had not been required to read; analyze; consult instrumentation; form a mental picture in relation to the departure procedure; and figure out where to join it. I did have that entire departure procedure picture in my thinking until I was given the abrogating instruction to fly direct ocn. I then 'cleared it' from my thinking. Even if I had memorized the departure procedure so perfectly that I would bet my life that I didn't have to consult the written instructions under these changing conditions; this forced attentional pause would have taken valuable time-slices that I should not have had to spend. Let me state it as clearly as I can: when ATC changes one's plan; they should provide a vector. They should not force one to consult a written plan; determine one's progress on that plan; only then to determine what action is currently needed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT ON SHORT IFR FLT BELIEVES ATC SHOULD NOT HAVE REASSIGNED THE DEP PROC HE HAD ABANDONED WHEN GIVEN A PREVIOUS VECTOR. DISTRACTION OF RE-EVALUTING HIS CLRNC RESULTS IN FAILURE TO MEET ALT RESTRICTIONS.

Narrative: MY TRIP WAS IFR TWR ENRTE; WHICH WAS NOT A CHOICE (BUT SHOULD BE) IN SECTION 'FLT PLAN' ABOVE. CLRNC DELIVERY INCLUDED A DEP PROC ON THE PHONE: CLB RWY HDG AT LEAST 670 FT/MI TO 300 FT; THEN CLBING L TURN TO 235 DEGS TO 1500 FT; THEN DIRECT OCN VOR. I WAS THEN TO FOLLOW SANN15 TWR ENRTE. I HAD JUST TAKEN OFF OKB RWY 24 AND WAS BEGINNING TO FOLLOW THE OBSTACLE DEP PROC. I CONTACTED ATC AND WAS TOLD AFTER A MOMENT TO TURN DIRECT OCN VOR. I BEGAN THAT TURN. ATC THEN ASSIGNED THAT TURN TO A DIFFERENT ACFT (NOT ONE THAT HAD JUST TAKEN OFF FROM OKB; I WAS THE ONLY ACTIVE AIRPLANE AT OKB); AND TOLD ME TO GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL DEP PROC (THEREBY ABROGATING THEIR IMMEDIATELY-PREVIOUS DIRECTIVE TO FLY DIRECT OCN). I BEGAN TO CONSULT MY WRITTEN DEP PROC; CHK MY ALT; AND DETERMINED THAT I SHOULD BE ON THE 240 DEG HDG; CLBING. I BEGAN TO CHANGE TO THIS VECTOR. WHILE FIGURING ALL OF THIS OUT; ATC POINTED OUT THAT I DID NOT APPEAR TO BE CLBING; AND THEY GAVE ME A VECTOR. I THEN CONFIRMED THAT THEY WANTED ME TO CLB TO 3000 FT. I FOLLOWED THEIR VECTOR AND CLB INSTRUCTIONS. SO FAR; THAT SOUNDS PRETTY SIMPLE. BUT THERE IS A PROCEDURAL PROB INHERENT IN ATC'S HANDLING OF MY FLT THAT I FEEL SHOULD BE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY. THAT'S THE MAIN REASON I'M WRITING THIS RPT. WHEN A PLT IS FOLLOWING AN IFR PROC; AND ATC CHANGES IT BY PROVIDING; E.G.; A VECTOR DIFFERENT FROM THE ANTICIPATED PROC; THE PLT'S JOB IS TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW ATC'S INSTRUCTIONS (UNLESS DANGEROUS; ETC). THIS IMPLIES VIRTUAL IMMEDIATE ABANDONMENT OF WHATEVER ELSE ONE WAS EXPECTING TO DO SINCE ATC'S RULES HAVE JUST CHANGED. AS A PSYCHOLOGIST; I WOULD DESCRIBE THIS PHENOMENON AS A REQUIRED SHIFT IN SET. IN THE PRESENTLY-DESCRIBED SIT; WHEN ATC HAD ME GO DIRECT OCN; I ABANDONED MY DEP PROC; ESSENTIALLY 'THROWING IT AWAY;' AS I TURNED TO FLY DIRECT OCN. HERE'S THE PROB: WHEN ATC TOLD ME TO GO BACK TO THE DEP PROC; I HAD TO TAKE TIME AND PRECIOUS ATTN TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE DEP PROC; COMPARE IT WITH MY INSTS AND POS IN SPACE; AND THEN ADJUST. WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER AND SAFER WOULD HAVE BEEN IF ATC HAD JUST GIVEN ME THE VECTOR THEY WANTED; E.G.; 'FLY HDG 240; CLB TO 1500; THEN GO DIRECT OCN VOR.' IT WAS THE SHIFT IN 'SET' THAT CREATED AN ATTENTIONAL PAUSE AND LED ME TO PAY INADEQUATE ATTN TO MY ALT. THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE; RATHER; IT IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE. I WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE MAINTAINED THE PROPER CLB IF I HAD NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO READ; ANALYZE; CONSULT INSTRUMENTATION; FORM A MENTAL PICTURE IN RELATION TO THE DEP PROC; AND FIGURE OUT WHERE TO JOIN IT. I DID HAVE THAT ENTIRE DEP PROC PICTURE IN MY THINKING UNTIL I WAS GIVEN THE ABROGATING INSTRUCTION TO FLY DIRECT OCN. I THEN 'CLRED IT' FROM MY THINKING. EVEN IF I HAD MEMORIZED THE DEP PROC SO PERFECTLY THAT I WOULD BET MY LIFE THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO CONSULT THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS UNDER THESE CHANGING CONDITIONS; THIS FORCED ATTENTIONAL PAUSE WOULD HAVE TAKEN VALUABLE TIME-SLICES THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO SPEND. LET ME STATE IT AS CLRLY AS I CAN: WHEN ATC CHANGES ONE'S PLAN; THEY SHOULD PROVIDE A VECTOR. THEY SHOULD NOT FORCE ONE TO CONSULT A WRITTEN PLAN; DETERMINE ONE'S PROGRESS ON THAT PLAN; ONLY THEN TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTION IS CURRENTLY NEEDED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.