Narrative:

We were cleared via the arthur kill departure and our route was via lanna. We erroneously remained on the 260 degree heading instead of intercepting the sbj 100 degree radial. When we were approximately abeam of sbj the controller asked where we were going and commented, 'I guess that still isn't depicted very clearly.' in our rush to get back where we belonged we initially programmed the MCP/FMS incorrectly and initially turned left instead of right, further compounding the error. At the same time the controller handed us off. This created a lot of confusion for us and the new controller. We all recognized and corrected the errors at the same time. No traffic conflicts occurred. Complacency was a definite factor in this error. We had just flown this SID on our previous departure from ewr and assumed the procedure was the same for all departure fixes. Obviously we did not test this assumption as we should have. Another factor is that this procedure is very poorly written/charted. I believe that the conventional method of depicting SID transitions should be used (ie, the routing via sbj to lanna should be depicted using a heavy dashed line and should be referred to as the 'lanna transition'). The clearance should also use this phraseology. Also, the commercial chart categorizes this procedure as a 'vector' procedure. This helped strengthen our (incorrect) belief that we would receive vectors to lanna. Perhaps this procedure should be separated into two procedures, one for the vector fixes and one for the pilot navigation fixes. Certainly some changes and improvements can be made to the current chart and clearance phraseology.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-300 ACFT DIDN'T FOLLOW CORRECT SID PROC. ON THE SID DEPICTION THERE ARE 14 DIFFERENT SID ROUTES WHICH RPTR CAPT BELIEVES CAN BE DEPICTED BETTER AND CLEARER.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED VIA THE ARTHUR KILL DEP AND OUR RTE WAS VIA LANNA. WE ERRONEOUSLY REMAINED ON THE 260 DEG HDG INSTEAD OF INTERCEPTING THE SBJ 100 DEG RADIAL. WHEN WE WERE APPROX ABEAM OF SBJ THE CTLR ASKED WHERE WE WERE GOING AND COMMENTED, 'I GUESS THAT STILL ISN'T DEPICTED VERY CLRLY.' IN OUR RUSH TO GET BACK WHERE WE BELONGED WE INITIALLY PROGRAMMED THE MCP/FMS INCORRECTLY AND INITIALLY TURNED L INSTEAD OF R, FURTHER COMPOUNDING THE ERROR. AT THE SAME TIME THE CTLR HANDED US OFF. THIS CREATED A LOT OF CONFUSION FOR US AND THE NEW CTLR. WE ALL RECOGNIZED AND CORRECTED THE ERRORS AT THE SAME TIME. NO TFC CONFLICTS OCCURRED. COMPLACENCY WAS A DEFINITE FACTOR IN THIS ERROR. WE HAD JUST FLOWN THIS SID ON OUR PREVIOUS DEP FROM EWR AND ASSUMED THE PROC WAS THE SAME FOR ALL DEP FIXES. OBVIOUSLY WE DID NOT TEST THIS ASSUMPTION AS WE SHOULD HAVE. ANOTHER FACTOR IS THAT THIS PROC IS VERY POORLY WRITTEN/CHARTED. I BELIEVE THAT THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD OF DEPICTING SID TRANSITIONS SHOULD BE USED (IE, THE ROUTING VIA SBJ TO LANNA SHOULD BE DEPICTED USING A HVY DASHED LINE AND SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS THE 'LANNA TRANSITION'). THE CLRNC SHOULD ALSO USE THIS PHRASEOLOGY. ALSO, THE COMMERCIAL CHART CATEGORIZES THIS PROC AS A 'VECTOR' PROC. THIS HELPED STRENGTHEN OUR (INCORRECT) BELIEF THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE VECTORS TO LANNA. PERHAPS THIS PROC SHOULD BE SEPARATED INTO TWO PROCS, ONE FOR THE VECTOR FIXES AND ONE FOR THE PLT NAV FIXES. CERTAINLY SOME CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO THE CURRENT CHART AND CLRNC PHRASEOLOGY.

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.