A part 135 cargo pilot did not fly a SID departure route as ATC expected.

Attributes
ACN	316060
Time
Date	199509
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : glj airport : smx
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1200 msl bound upper : 1200
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zla
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Cessna 310/T310C
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	climbout : initial
Route In Use	departure other departure sid : sid enroute airway : zla enroute other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 3800 flight time type : 25
ASRS Report	316060
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	observation : observer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I had filed an IFR flight plan from smx to sbp due to fog. I was filed to utilize the buelt 1 departure to frams. Upon departure, the tower immediately cleared me to departure frequency (ZLA). They acted as if I was a surprise or as if they did not have my plan on file, even though I had filed, and received a clearance. Apparently, the controller stated that I had not in fact, flown the course he had intended initially. This statement was made about 10 mins after the supposed 'misnav.' he thought that I had not flown to buelt intersection before my turn on course. I thought it strange that even though he had my transponder mode C reply, he failed to mention this at the time. My recommendation is that while pilots must do a satisfactory job of navigating under IMC, controllers should verify, whenever possible, the course of those aircraft. If I had been alerted sooner of my 'off course' I would have been more than happy to comply. Another fully qualified part 135 IMC pilot was riding with me (company pilot), and he also did not notice any off course indications from the instruments or charts.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PART 135 CARGO PLT DID NOT FLY A SID DEP RTE AS ATC EXPECTED.

Narrative: I HAD FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN FROM SMX TO SBP DUE TO FOG. I WAS FILED TO UTILIZE THE BUELT 1 DEP TO FRAMS. UPON DEP, THE TWR IMMEDIATELY CLRED ME TO DEP FREQ (ZLA). THEY ACTED AS IF I WAS A SURPRISE OR AS IF THEY DID NOT HAVE MY PLAN ON FILE, EVEN THOUGH I HAD FILED, AND RECEIVED A CLRNC. APPARENTLY, THE CTLR STATED THAT I HAD NOT IN FACT, FLOWN THE COURSE HE HAD INTENDED INITIALLY. THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE ABOUT 10 MINS AFTER THE SUPPOSED 'MISNAV.' HE THOUGHT THAT I HAD NOT FLOWN TO BUELT INTXN BEFORE MY TURN ON COURSE. I THOUGHT IT STRANGE THAT EVEN THOUGH HE HAD MY XPONDER MODE C REPLY, HE FAILED TO MENTION THIS AT THE TIME. MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WHILE PLTS MUST DO A SATISFACTORY JOB OF NAVING UNDER IMC, CTLRS SHOULD VERIFY, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, THE COURSE OF THOSE ACFT. IF I HAD BEEN ALERTED SOONER OF MY 'OFF COURSE' I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO COMPLY. ANOTHER FULLY QUALIFIED PART 135 IMC PLT WAS RIDING WITH ME (COMPANY PLT), AND HE ALSO DID NOT NOTICE ANY OFF COURSE INDICATIONS FROM THE INSTS OR CHARTS.

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.