Narrative:

Prior to flight, crew briefed new mia 6 departure SID (used for the first time). Both pilots inadvertently dialed mia VOR as departure NAVAID (used on predessor SID) instead of phk VOR as depicted. Omegas also depicted first leg as mia to hedley, reinforcing mistake. On climb out, we were cleared to heading 340 degrees to intercept hedly transition. Both vors and omega appeared to indicate we were 'right on' course although minor deviations for rapidly building cumulus in the area were required and noted to ATC after his first query as to our current heading. A second query from ATC got us reviewing the SID which revealed our mistake, but not in time to prevent a harsh call from departure altering our course approximately 60 degrees and admonishing us not to deviate without informing them. No close calls were noted and flight engineer and captain calculated we were not more than 2-3 mi off course. However, potential for hazards was certainly present. Clearly, our preflight review of the new SID was inadequate and we assumed too much remained the same. Closer review of all revisions is now a high priority with me.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MISREAD PUB. THE FLC REVIEWED THE SID, BUT POORLY. THE DEP CTLR, AFTER SOME STRUGGLE, GOT THEM ON COURSE.

Narrative: PRIOR TO FLT, CREW BRIEFED NEW MIA 6 DEP SID (USED FOR THE FIRST TIME). BOTH PLTS INADVERTENTLY DIALED MIA VOR AS DEP NAVAID (USED ON PREDESSOR SID) INSTEAD OF PHK VOR AS DEPICTED. OMEGAS ALSO DEPICTED FIRST LEG AS MIA TO HEDLEY, REINFORCING MISTAKE. ON CLBOUT, WE WERE CLRED TO HDG 340 DEGS TO INTERCEPT HEDLY TRANSITION. BOTH VORS AND OMEGA APPEARED TO INDICATE WE WERE 'RIGHT ON' COURSE ALTHOUGH MINOR DEVS FOR RAPIDLY BUILDING CUMULUS IN THE AREA WERE REQUIRED AND NOTED TO ATC AFTER HIS FIRST QUERY AS TO OUR CURRENT HDG. A SECOND QUERY FROM ATC GOT US REVIEWING THE SID WHICH REVEALED OUR MISTAKE, BUT NOT IN TIME TO PREVENT A HARSH CALL FROM DEP ALTERING OUR COURSE APPROX 60 DEGS AND ADMONISHING US NOT TO DEVIATE WITHOUT INFORMING THEM. NO CLOSE CALLS WERE NOTED AND FE AND CAPT CALCULATED WE WERE NOT MORE THAN 2-3 MI OFF COURSE. HOWEVER, POTENTIAL FOR HAZARDS WAS CERTAINLY PRESENT. CLRLY, OUR PREFLT REVIEW OF THE NEW SID WAS INADEQUATE AND WE ASSUMED TOO MUCH REMAINED THE SAME. CLOSER REVIEW OF ALL REVISIONS IS NOW A HIGH PRIORITY WITH ME.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.