Narrative:

On the climb out of cvg on the whitewater 5 departure cadiz transition. We were on a 274 degree heading after takeoff from runway 27. As we were approaching the course line to intercept the course; ATC asked if he had given us clearance to join the transition but quickly; in the same transmission; told us that if he hadn't told us to go; go ahead and join the transition. At this time we were right on the course line and I immediately began to turn on course towards decee. At the same time also the first officer asked if he wanted us to head directly to decee. (Which I was already doing with the heading bug.) I think this somewhat confused the controller as to why we would be asking to go directly to the next obvious fix. The first officer; controller along with another crew on the frequency had a brief amicable exchange regarding the departure procedure. We failed to closely look at the whitewater 5 departure plate. We later realized that it was not an RNAV departure. And also had we read the routing portion of the departure we would have read that it indeed reads to 'expect radar' vectors to cvg 294 degree radial; the via cvg 294 degree radial to decee. Even though we caught it in time; I believe had we done a better brief on the departure there would not have been any confusion as to why the CDI never showed a turn. Emphasize to crews that even though RNAV departures are getting more common there still is some non RNAV departures out there in the ATC system. Also; I don't know if it's possible but perhaps would it be possible to program our dispatch computer to add a note stating (not an RNAV) when it is not an RNAV departure in the release. I think it would be another heads-up to the crew. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter does not believe that a track deviation occurred because when the aircraft turned direct to decee they were on a track directly to it. However; because they did not have either the FMS set up or the VOR tuned with a course the aircraft was not ready for 294 degree right to decee. Many departures now are FMS RNAV procedures and the fact that this was not an FMS procedure did not occur to the flight crew until the controller said to intercept the cvg 294 degree right. The reporter commented that because he has never flown this SID before and did not feel that the pilots adequately briefed it they could easily have had a track deviation. In order to prevent an error; if the first fix in the database were cvg then a track to decee on the 294 degree right could be intercepted as part of the departure instead of a vector to the 294 degree right then to decee. Supplemental information from acn 801100: before I could notify the captain ATC said; 'if I haven't already told you; you are cleared to join the whitewater departure.' I immediately asked if we could go direct to decee intersection because we were unable to join the departure from that position. The controller responded with something about; 'you are filed on the whitewater departure.' I told him that we were; however; our FMS wasn't sequencing that turn properly because it was a vector to intercept decee and that we were turning to decee at that time. It may be helpful for everyone if the FMS automatic loaded cvg as the first fix in the database. The approach plate would probably need to be changed because it doesn't actually show the course beginning at the VOR but at an unspecified point between the VOR and decee intersection. I believe that would automatically cue the FMS people to update their database for this departure also. Sans the above actions; it would be beneficial to include a 'remedy or course of action' in the commercial chart pages so that this situation would never happen to an unfamiliar crew again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CREW ON THE CVG WHITEWATER FIVE SID WAS CLEARED TO INTERCEPT THE CVG 294 DEG R BUT DID NOT HAVE THE FMS OR VOR RAW DATA SET TO INTERCEPT.

Narrative: ON THE CLBOUT OF CVG ON THE WHITEWATER 5 DEP CADIZ TRANSITION. WE WERE ON A 274 DEG HDG AFTER TKOF FROM RWY 27. AS WE WERE APCHING THE COURSE LINE TO INTERCEPT THE COURSE; ATC ASKED IF HE HAD GIVEN US CLRNC TO JOIN THE TRANSITION BUT QUICKLY; IN THE SAME XMISSION; TOLD US THAT IF HE HADN'T TOLD US TO GO; GO AHEAD AND JOIN THE TRANSITION. AT THIS TIME WE WERE RIGHT ON THE COURSE LINE AND I IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO TURN ON COURSE TOWARDS DECEE. AT THE SAME TIME ALSO THE FO ASKED IF HE WANTED US TO HEAD DIRECTLY TO DECEE. (WHICH I WAS ALREADY DOING WITH THE HDG BUG.) I THINK THIS SOMEWHAT CONFUSED THE CTLR AS TO WHY WE WOULD BE ASKING TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE NEXT OBVIOUS FIX. THE FO; CTLR ALONG WITH ANOTHER CREW ON THE FREQ HAD A BRIEF AMICABLE EXCHANGE REGARDING THE DEP PROC. WE FAILED TO CLOSELY LOOK AT THE WHITEWATER 5 DEP PLATE. WE LATER REALIZED THAT IT WAS NOT AN RNAV DEP. AND ALSO HAD WE READ THE ROUTING PORTION OF THE DEP WE WOULD HAVE READ THAT IT INDEED READS TO 'EXPECT RADAR' VECTORS TO CVG 294 DEG RADIAL; THE VIA CVG 294 DEG RADIAL TO DECEE. EVEN THOUGH WE CAUGHT IT IN TIME; I BELIEVE HAD WE DONE A BETTER BRIEF ON THE DEP THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY CONFUSION AS TO WHY THE CDI NEVER SHOWED A TURN. EMPHASIZE TO CREWS THAT EVEN THOUGH RNAV DEPS ARE GETTING MORE COMMON THERE STILL IS SOME NON RNAV DEPS OUT THERE IN THE ATC SYS. ALSO; I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE BUT PERHAPS WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO PROGRAM OUR DISPATCH COMPUTER TO ADD A NOTE STATING (NOT AN RNAV) WHEN IT IS NOT AN RNAV DEP IN THE RELEASE. I THINK IT WOULD BE ANOTHER HEADS-UP TO THE CREW. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT A TRACK DEVIATION OCCURRED BECAUSE WHEN THE ACFT TURNED DIRECT TO DECEE THEY WERE ON A TRACK DIRECTLY TO IT. HOWEVER; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE EITHER THE FMS SET UP OR THE VOR TUNED WITH A COURSE THE ACFT WAS NOT READY FOR 294 DEG R TO DECEE. MANY DEPARTURES NOW ARE FMS RNAV PROCEDURES AND THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT AN FMS PROCEDURE DID NOT OCCUR TO THE FLT CREW UNTIL THE CONTROLLER SAID TO INTERCEPT THE CVG 294 DEG R. THE REPORTER COMMENTED THAT BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER FLOWN THIS SID BEFORE AND DID NOT FEEL THAT THE PILOTS ADEQUATELY BRIEFED IT THEY COULD EASILY HAVE HAD A TRACK DEV. IN ORDER TO PREVENT AN ERROR; IF THE FIRST FIX IN THE DATABASE WERE CVG THEN A TRACK TO DECEE ON THE 294 DEG R COULD BE INTERCEPTED AS PART OF THE DEPARTURE INSTEAD OF A VECTOR TO THE 294 DEG R THEN TO DECEE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 801100: BEFORE I COULD NOTIFY THE CAPT ATC SAID; 'IF I HAVEN'T ALREADY TOLD YOU; YOU ARE CLRED TO JOIN THE WHITEWATER DEP.' I IMMEDIATELY ASKED IF WE COULD GO DIRECT TO DECEE INTXN BECAUSE WE WERE UNABLE TO JOIN THE DEP FROM THAT POS. THE CTLR RESPONDED WITH SOMETHING ABOUT; 'YOU ARE FILED ON THE WHITEWATER DEP.' I TOLD HIM THAT WE WERE; HOWEVER; OUR FMS WASN'T SEQUENCING THAT TURN PROPERLY BECAUSE IT WAS A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT DECEE AND THAT WE WERE TURNING TO DECEE AT THAT TIME. IT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR EVERYONE IF THE FMS AUTO LOADED CVG AS THE FIRST FIX IN THE DATABASE. THE APCH PLATE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SHOW THE COURSE BEGINNING AT THE VOR BUT AT AN UNSPECIFIED POINT BTWN THE VOR AND DECEE INTXN. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY CUE THE FMS PEOPLE TO UPDATE THEIR DATABASE FOR THIS DEP ALSO. SANS THE ABOVE ACTIONS; IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO INCLUDE A 'REMEDY OR COURSE OF ACTION' IN THE COMMERCIAL CHART PAGES SO THAT THIS SITUATION WOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO AN UNFAMILIAR CREW AGAIN.

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.