Narrative:

Departed from psp on the cathedral nine SID; we may have deviated from our assigned clearance. A VFR skylane departed immediately ahead of us who seemed unable to receive any communications. This became clear during our climb as he repeatedly asked to switch frequencies while departure and tower called him repeatedly to switch frequencies. Just before we took off we were advised that an inbound VFR aircraft was holding over the psp VORTAC; our first point enroute. Our clearance was after psp cleared V370 to tnp (later re-cleared direct pke instead) then drk as filed. Concern with the aircraft holding over psp as well as congested communications and a desire to exit the traffic heavy psp vicinity may have lead us to overlook the cathedral nine routing from psp to emrud for returning to psp then on course. The FMS showed us routing from psp to V370; but was this routing after passing overhead psp the second time? Our pre-departure SID review could certainly have been better; is the routing via emrud always required; or is it only to attain the MCA over psp before proceeding? Perhaps the MCP ball notes could be emphasized in later revisions and the routing via emrud. Crews anxious to continue on course; especially if the psp area is congested are very likely to trail outbound from psp to their first enroute fix and miss the emrud loop as we likely did. There were no terrain or traffic alerts during our departure; nor did ATC advise of any conflicts; though they tried to mention something to us about a departure fix; but the congested frequency didn't allow any discussion and we continued without event to the next ATC sector and our destination.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that they were likely not yet at the required 6200 ft MSL as they passed psp VOR the first time; more likely between 5500 ft and 6000 ft. He felt if they had flown runway heading just a bit longer they would have made the restriction. Reporter stated; however; that the biggest reason for the error was the rushed condition of their departure and the resulting foreshortened departure briefing that failed to note the specifics of the route. Reporter advised the SID was line selected on the FMS and did include the 'loop' out to emrud and back and that they were in a lateral navigation mode shortly after takeoff. Reporter could not remember why the flight director system failed to provide the appropriate turns but felt it was likely they reprogrammed prior to reaching the VOR. Other than the distractions addressed in the original narrative he made no attempt to excuse the deviation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Cleared via the CATHEDRAL NINE departure at PSP; flight crew of an MD80 failed to fly the procedure track to EMRUD and back to PSP.

Narrative: Departed from PSP on the CATHEDRAL NINE SID; we may have deviated from our assigned clearance. A VFR Skylane departed immediately ahead of us who seemed unable to receive any communications. This became clear during our climb as he repeatedly asked to switch frequencies while Departure and Tower called him repeatedly to switch frequencies. Just before we took off we were advised that an inbound VFR aircraft was holding over the PSP VORTAC; our first point enroute. Our clearance was after PSP cleared V370 to TNP (later re-cleared direct PKE instead) then DRK as filed. Concern with the aircraft holding over PSP as well as congested communications and a desire to exit the traffic heavy PSP vicinity may have lead us to overlook the CATHEDRAL NINE routing from PSP to EMRUD for returning to PSP then on course. The FMS showed us routing from PSP to V370; but was this routing after passing overhead PSP the second time? Our pre-departure SID review could certainly have been better; is the routing via EMRUD always required; or is it only to attain the MCA over PSP before proceeding? Perhaps the MCP ball notes could be emphasized in later revisions and the routing via EMRUD. Crews anxious to continue on course; especially if the PSP area is congested are very likely to trail outbound from PSP to their first enroute fix and miss the EMRUD loop as we likely did. There were no terrain or traffic alerts during our departure; nor did ATC advise of any conflicts; though they tried to mention something to us about a departure fix; but the congested frequency didn't allow any discussion and we continued without event to the next ATC sector and our destination.Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: Reporter stated that they were likely not yet at the required 6200 FT MSL as they passed PSP VOR the first time; more likely between 5500 FT and 6000 FT. He felt if they had flown runway heading just a bit longer they would have made the restriction. Reporter stated; however; that the biggest reason for the error was the rushed condition of their departure and the resulting foreshortened departure briefing that failed to note the specifics of the route. Reporter advised the SID was line selected on the FMS and did include the 'loop' out to EMRUD and back and that they were in a lateral navigation mode shortly after takeoff. Reporter could not remember why the flight director system failed to provide the appropriate turns but felt it was likely they reprogrammed prior to reaching the VOR. Other than the distractions addressed in the original narrative he made no attempt to excuse the deviation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.