Narrative:

Flight was cleared for takeoff on runway 26L with departure instructions to turn to left 090 and cleared to maintain 2500 ft. Takeoff was routine and we climbed on runway heading initially to gain safe altitude to make the left turn to assigned heading. There was higher terrain immediately adjacent to the airport in our proposed flight path; so climbed with the intent to make left turn after reaching 1500 ft AGL which would guarantee safe clearance from higher terrain. Climbing thru 1200 ft sus tower told us to contact stl departure. Pilot not flying did so; and immediately; we were asked what our heading was. Pilot not flying reported that we were heading 260. ATC controller asked what heading we had been assigned by the tower along with takeoff clearance. Pilot not flying reported that assigned heading after takeoff was 090. Before he could explain that we were preparing to turn to that heading now that safe altitude had been reached reference the higher terrain; the ATC specialist scolded us and in an agitated voice said '090 was not a suggestion!! It was an assigned heading!!!' pilot not flying said 'roger; we're turning now.' ATC: 'no don't turn now you have a jet climbing right up your tail!!!' he instructed us to maintain present heading.... We did so; and he shortly instructed us to turn left to 180; which we did... Then; he instructed us to turn left to 090; which we did. He was very agitated and seemed under a lot of stress; as there was severe weather in the vicinity of st. Louis; and I'm sure his usable airspace for arrivals and departures was severely constricted. He told us we would have to go 60-80 miles east of st. Louis to end run the weather system before we would be able to go on course. We told him we did not want to go east; as it looked like 20 miles to the west would circumvent the weather system. He turned us around to a west heading and cleared us to climb to 4000 ft. Soon after we made the turn and made the climb to 4000 ft; he said 'copy this telephone number.' and proceeded to give us a phone number for the stl TRACON; and he further said; I want you to call this number immediately upon landing!! This is a possible 'pilot deviation.' pilot not flying read the phone number back and we departed the area without further incident. Upon landing; I called the number and spoke to a 'qa' supervisor at stl TRACON. We discussed the incident; and he asked me for my impressions and report on what happened. I told him exactly what has been stated here. He was professional; courteous; and indicated that an investigation had been launched in to the event; and that once completed; including looking at the radar traces and listening to the tower and TRACON tapes; a decision would be made as to whether it would go any further. He said it could be determined that no 'deviation' had occurred; and if so; that would be the end of the matter; or it could be referred to the local FSDO for further action. He said he would call and let me know; which he did. The decision was that no violation or deviation had occurred and the matter was closed. Factors that were causal in this incident were the high terrain adjacent to the runway; the less than impressive climb performance of the aircraft due gross weight and density altitude necessitating a longer than usual climb before initiating the assigned turn to 090; and a lack of communication on the initial contact with the TRACON. Perhaps it would have been better if the flight had informed the ATC personnel that climb performance may be less than expected under optimum conditions; and runway heading would be flown until reaching 1500'. Perhaps it would have been better if tower had informed the flight that an early turn was requested due jet traffic departing immediately behind us. (We would have been alerted to the possible conflict and would have told tower that we would be on runway heading for an extended time due terrain clearance on assigned flight path. Lastly; perhaps it would have been better if ATC TRACON controller had given a chance to flight to explain what and why our turn was delayed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Piper pilot departing Runway 26 at SUS IFR is instructed to turn left heading 090 after takeoff. Reporter delays turn until 1500 FT for terrain and is admonished by ATC for not complying with clearance.

Narrative: Flight was cleared for takeoff on Runway 26L with departure instructions to turn to left 090 and cleared to maintain 2500 FT. Takeoff was routine and we climbed on runway heading initially to gain safe altitude to make the left turn to assigned heading. There was higher terrain immediately adjacent to the airport in our proposed flight path; so climbed with the intent to make left turn after reaching 1500 FT AGL which would guarantee safe clearance from higher terrain. Climbing thru 1200 FT SUS tower told us to contact STL Departure. Pilot not flying did so; and immediately; we were asked what our heading was. Pilot not flying reported that we were heading 260. ATC Controller asked what heading we had been assigned by the tower along with takeoff clearance. Pilot not flying reported that assigned heading after takeoff was 090. Before he could explain that we were preparing to turn to that heading now that safe altitude had been reached reference the higher terrain; the ATC Specialist scolded us and in an agitated voice said '090 WAS NOT A SUGGESTION!! IT WAS AN ASSIGNED HEADING!!!' pilot not flying said 'roger; we're turning now.' ATC: 'NO DON'T TURN NOW YOU HAVE A JET CLIMBING RIGHT UP YOUR TAIL!!!' He instructed us to maintain present heading.... We did so; and he shortly instructed us to turn left to 180; which we did... Then; he instructed us to turn left to 090; which we did. He was very agitated and seemed under a lot of stress; as there was severe weather in the vicinity of St. Louis; and I'm sure his usable airspace for arrivals and departures was severely constricted. He told us we would have to go 60-80 miles east of St. Louis to end run the weather system before we would be able to go on course. We told him we did NOT want to go east; as it looked like 20 miles to the west would circumvent the weather system. He turned us around to a west heading and cleared us to climb to 4000 FT. Soon after we made the turn and made the climb to 4000 FT; he said 'COPY THIS TELEPHONE NUMBER.' and proceeded to give us a phone number for the STL TRACON; and he further said; I want you to call this number IMMEDIATELY upon landing!! This is a possible 'pilot deviation.' Pilot not flying read the phone number back and we departed the area without further incident. Upon landing; I called the number and spoke to a 'QA' supervisor at STL TRACON. We discussed the incident; and he asked me for my impressions and report on what happened. I told him exactly what has been stated here. He was professional; courteous; and indicated that an investigation had been launched in to the event; and that once completed; including looking at the radar traces and listening to the tower and TRACON tapes; a decision would be made as to whether it would go any further. He said it could be determined that no 'deviation' had occurred; and if so; that would be the end of the matter; or it could be referred to the local FSDO for further action. He said he would call and let me know; which he did. The decision was that no violation or deviation had occurred and the matter was closed. Factors that were causal in this incident were the high terrain adjacent to the runway; the less than impressive climb performance of the aircraft due gross weight and density altitude necessitating a longer than usual climb before initiating the assigned turn to 090; and a lack of communication on the initial contact with the TRACON. Perhaps it would have been better if the flight had informed the ATC personnel that climb performance may be less than expected under optimum conditions; and runway heading would be flown until reaching 1500'. Perhaps it would have been better if Tower had informed the flight that an early turn was requested due jet traffic departing immediately behind us. (We would have been alerted to the possible conflict and would have told Tower that we would be on runway heading for an extended time due terrain clearance on assigned flight path. Lastly; perhaps it would have been better if ATC TRACON Controller had given a chance to flight to explain what and why our turn was delayed.

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.