Narrative:

My first officer and I were scheduled to fly with passengers from rac. Weather was good VFR and traffic at the field was light. The flight was to be operated under far 135. Rac being a non-tower controlled field we picked up our clearance on the ground with milwaukee approach and were told to hold for release. The clearance was as follows: 'cleared to ZZZ via radar vectors obk; as filed; maintain 2600; hold for release.' I read this back and was told to report number one ready and which runway we were to depart on. The wind was favoring runway 4. Runway 22 offered us a slight tailwind component; the other runways were unsuitable due to their length. Several minutes later; we called number one ready runway 4 and were given the following clearance: 'flight XXX is released; enter controlled airspace heading 180.' my first officer and I briefly discussed how to do this; being aware of the traffic pattern departure requirements and we agreed to climb on runway heading until about 500 feet then exit the pattern with a 45 degree turn to the left. (Racine has a left traffic pattern for runway 4). Once clear of and well above the pattern; I would turn further left heading 180. This would position us nearer to the field than the other approved traffic pattern departure -- climbing straight out until well clear and above the pattern; then executing the turn. I was at the controls and the first officer was talking on the radio. Immediately after takeoff; the first officer reported departing the pattern to racine traffic on CTAF; then changed frequencies to contact milwaukee approach. He was unable to check in right away because we heard an apparently very busy and annoyed controller report to another aircraft something to the effect of: 'there's a jet coming out of racine in a left turn that I'm not talking to. I don't know why he's turning left; so I've got to see what he's going to do before I do anything else ....' the first officer then checked in and the controller seemed very upset with us. He stated; 'I don't know why you turned left; I needed you to turn right. You always take the shortest turn to get to your heading! I've got departures out of milwaukee here I'm trying to get around you ....' this exchange worried me considerably since I thought I departed the traffic pattern at rac in a manner which complied with far 91.127b and aim 4-3 (example 6); and complied with the 180 heading as best as possible. The idea of making a right turn immediately after takeoff from an uncontrolled field went against the training I remember receiving in company recurrent the previous august; which reviewed the rules for entering and departing a traffic pattern. Because of the obvious misunderstanding; I wished to discuss this with the controller so I would have some valuable information to bring to our other pilots departing this airport. (I figured it must be some local agreement or procedure.) since he was very busy; as he handed us off to chicago approach; I asked him for his operating initials. I figured I could look up the milwaukee approach phone number and call him later. This seemed to make him extremely upset. He told me to change to chicago approach; then call him back in five minutes for a phone number. This we did. Upon landing; and discussing the situation with an assistant chief pilot; I called the phone number and spoke to another controller who was familiar with the situation. He took my name and contact information and stated that while no loss of separation occurred; 'flight standards will probably investigate this;' so I should expect a phone call. Later that evening; the quality control officer for milwaukee tower and approach control called my home; left a message to call him at his personal cell phone number and stated that no pilot deviation had occurred but he wanted to talk to me. I called the quality control officer and we had a very informative; cordial discussion. He described how we had entered into the controller's picture at a very busy time and the fact that we appeared in an unexpected place made matters worse. He also stated that; 'mistakes were made on both sides'. I explained my reasoning for doing what I did; and he said I should remember that aim recommendations are not regulatory. He was familiar with paragraph 4-3. One thing was clear from our discussion: the controllers at milwaukee approach expect all departures off of racine to; 'take the shortest turn to their assigned heading' (even if it's a right turn; apparently); contact departure as soon as possible; and expect to be asked to identify before being told you are in radar contact.' while I feel we did everything as correct as possible on this departure; I wish I had looked at the WAC chart before departing. I would have seen the close proximity of rac to mke's class C airspace and may have decided either to do something different or ask for an amended clearance. However; in this case when departing on a heading of 040; entering controlled airspace on a heading of 180; with controlled airspace beginning at 700 AGL; would call for a quite extreme maneuver which I'm sure would violate the above mentioned regulations and aim recommendations (which I believe to be regulatory) concerning operation in a traffic pattern. I hope this report will make our pilots aware of ATC's expectations when departing rac in the future.while I feel we did everything as correct as possible on this departure; I wish I had looked at the WAC chart before departing. I would have seen the close proximity of rac to mke's class C airspace and may have decided either to do something different or ask for an amended clearance. However; in this case when departing on a heading of 040; entering controlled airspace on a heading of 180; with controlled airspace beginning at 700 AGL; would call for a quite extreme maneuver which I'm sure would violate the above mentioned regulations and aim recommendations (which I believe to be regulatory) concerning operation in a traffic pattern. I hope this report will make our pilots aware of ATC's expectations when departing rac in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Flight crew departing RAC Runway 4 is instructed to 'enter controlled airspace on a heading of 180 degrees'. Crew makes a left turn out to comply with RAC traffic pattern procedures before continuing left turn to 180. This causes a conflict with MKE airspace and raises the ire of a MKE Controller.

Narrative: My First Officer and I were scheduled to fly with passengers from RAC. Weather was good VFR and traffic at the field was light. The flight was to be operated under FAR 135. RAC being a non-tower controlled field we picked up our clearance on the ground with Milwaukee Approach and were told to hold for release. The clearance was as follows: 'Cleared to ZZZ via radar vectors OBK; as filed; maintain 2600; hold for release.' I read this back and was told to report number one ready and which runway we were to depart on. The wind was favoring Runway 4. Runway 22 offered us a slight tailwind component; the other runways were unsuitable due to their length. Several minutes later; we called number one ready Runway 4 and were given the following clearance: 'Flight XXX is released; enter controlled airspace heading 180.' My First Officer and I briefly discussed how to do this; being aware of the traffic pattern departure requirements and we agreed to climb on runway heading until about 500 feet then exit the pattern with a 45 degree turn to the left. (Racine has a left traffic pattern for Runway 4). Once clear of and well above the pattern; I would turn further left heading 180. This would position us nearer to the field than the other approved traffic pattern departure -- climbing straight out until well clear and above the pattern; then executing the turn. I was at the controls and the First Officer was talking on the radio. Immediately after takeoff; the First Officer reported departing the pattern to Racine traffic on CTAF; then changed frequencies to contact Milwaukee Approach. He was unable to check in right away because we heard an apparently very busy and annoyed Controller report to another aircraft something to the effect of: 'There's a jet coming out of Racine in a left turn that I'm not talking to. I don't know why he's turning left; so I've got to see what he's going to do before I do anything else ....' The First Officer then checked in and the Controller seemed very upset with us. He stated; 'I don't know why you turned left; I needed you to turn RIGHT. You ALWAYS take the shortest turn to get to your heading! I've got departures out of Milwaukee here I'm trying to get around you ....' This exchange worried me considerably since I thought I departed the traffic pattern at RAC in a manner which complied with FAR 91.127b and AIM 4-3 (example 6); and complied with the 180 heading as best as possible. The idea of making a RIGHT turn immediately after takeoff from an uncontrolled field went against the training I remember receiving in company recurrent the previous August; which reviewed the rules for entering and departing a traffic pattern. Because of the obvious misunderstanding; I wished to discuss this with the Controller so I would have some valuable information to bring to our other pilots departing this airport. (I figured it must be some local agreement or procedure.) Since he was VERY busy; as he handed us off to Chicago approach; I asked him for his operating initials. I figured I could look up the Milwaukee Approach phone number and call him later. This seemed to make him extremely upset. He told me to change to Chicago Approach; then call him back in five minutes for a phone number. This we did. Upon landing; and discussing the situation with an Assistant Chief Pilot; I called the phone number and spoke to another Controller who was familiar with the situation. He took my name and contact information and stated that while no loss of separation occurred; 'flight standards will probably investigate this;' so I should expect a phone call. Later that evening; the Quality Control Officer for Milwaukee Tower and Approach Control called my home; left a message to call him at his personal cell phone number and stated that NO PILOT DEVIATION had occurred but he wanted to talk to me. I called the Quality Control Officer and we had a very informative; cordial discussion. He described how we had entered into the Controller's picture at a very busy time and the fact that we appeared in an unexpected place made matters worse. He also stated that; 'mistakes were made on both sides'. I explained my reasoning for doing what I did; and he said I should remember that AIM recommendations are not regulatory. He was familiar with paragraph 4-3. One thing was clear from our discussion: The controllers at Milwaukee Approach expect all departures off of Racine to; 'Take the shortest turn to their assigned heading' (even if it's a RIGHT turn; apparently); contact Departure as soon as possible; and expect to be asked to IDENT before being told you are in radar contact.' While I feel we did everything as correct as possible on this departure; I wish I had looked at the WAC chart before departing. I would have seen the close proximity of RAC to MKE's class C airspace and may have decided either to do something different or ask for an amended clearance. However; in this case when departing on a heading of 040; entering controlled airspace on a heading of 180; with controlled airspace beginning at 700 AGL; would call for a quite extreme maneuver which I'm sure would violate the above mentioned regulations and AIM recommendations (which I believe to be regulatory) concerning operation in a traffic pattern. I hope this report will make our pilots aware of ATC's expectations when departing RAC in the future.While I feel we did everything as correct as possible on this departure; I wish I had looked at the WAC chart before departing. I would have seen the close proximity of RAC to MKE's class C airspace and may have decided either to do something different or ask for an amended clearance. However; in this case when departing on a heading of 040; entering controlled airspace on a heading of 180; with controlled airspace beginning at 700 AGL; would call for a quite extreme maneuver which I'm sure would violate the above mentioned regulations and AIM recommendations (which I believe to be regulatory) concerning operation in a traffic pattern. I hope this report will make our pilots aware of ATC's expectations when departing RAC in the future.

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.