Narrative:

Aircraft X departed ogg. The aircraft should have been cleared radar vectors to fites; climbing to 050 (per the LOA). Instead; the aircraft departed on the onohi 2 departure; climbing to 050. On the onohi 2 departure; 050 is an unsafe altitude because it is below the MVA's.when I asked the pilot; he said he was cleared via the onohi 2 departure. When I called tower; they stated that they gave the aircraft radar vectors to fites; climbing to 050. The sector 3 controller informed me that ogg tower even specifically asked when they called for clearance on aircraft X; if it would be radar vectors to fites; and [controller] stated affirmative.as of right now; I'm not sure if this is a pilot deviation or an error by ogg tower; so I will write it up both ways.if this is a pilot deviation; aircraft X was issued radar vectors to fites and instead executed the onohi 2 departure; upon takeoff. This is unsafe because we are expecting an aircraft to comply with control instructions.if this is an ogg tower error; then...per LOA - 'tower must (for runways 2/5); clear aircraft via radar vectors to the first fix; maintain 5;000 feet MSL'if ogg tower assigned the onohi 2 departure; then tower did not comply with the LOA because ogg tower did not request release and inform me that aircraft X would be doing the onohi 2 departure. Per the LOA - 'for oceanic departures; tower must request release of onohi and sweep departures.'also; even if ogg tower did issue radar vectors to aircraft X; ogg tower did not call me for the rolling call off; until after aircraft X was in the air; and on my scope; another requirement per the LOA.I did give aircraft X the brasher; and informed him to call hcf for a possible pilot deviation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HCF Controller and Corporate jet pilots reported confusion on departure clearance because pilots selected LNAV instead of heading mode.

Narrative: Aircraft X departed OGG. The aircraft should have been cleared radar vectors to FITES; climbing to 050 (per the LOA). Instead; the aircraft departed on the ONOHI 2 departure; climbing to 050. On the ONOHI 2 departure; 050 is an unsafe altitude because it is below the MVA's.When I asked the pilot; he said he was cleared via the ONOHI 2 departure. When I called tower; they stated that they gave the aircraft radar vectors to FITES; climbing to 050. The sector 3 controller informed me that OGG Tower even specifically asked when they called for clearance on Aircraft X; if it would be radar vectors to FITES; and [controller] stated affirmative.As of right now; I'm not sure if this is a pilot deviation or an error by OGG Tower; so I will write it up both ways.If this is a pilot deviation; Aircraft X was issued radar vectors to FITES and instead executed the ONOHI 2 departure; upon takeoff. This is unsafe because we are expecting an aircraft to comply with control instructions.If this is an OGG Tower error; then...Per LOA - 'Tower must (for runways 2/5); clear aircraft via radar vectors to the first fix; maintain 5;000 feet MSL'If OGG Tower assigned the ONOHI 2 departure; then tower did not comply with the LOA because OGG Tower did not request release and inform me that Aircraft X would be doing the ONOHI 2 departure. Per the LOA - 'For oceanic departures; tower must request release of ONOHI and SWEEP departures.'Also; even if OGG Tower did issue radar vectors to Aircraft X; OGG Tower did not call me for the rolling call off; until after Aircraft X was in the air; and on my scope; another requirement per the LOA.I did give Aircraft X the brasher; and informed him to call HCF for a possible pilot deviation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.