Narrative:

After being asked to 'backtrack quickly,' the tower passed an ATC clearance that was nothing more than 'climb to 2600 ft, squawk xx.' after confirming these numbers, I asked for a route clearance, 'raizet confirm cleared left turn direct goret, as filed, climb 2600 ft, squawk xx.' we heard a reply to the effect of '...direct goret, 2600 ft.' it seemed that he had begun his transmission before mine was complete. He also emphasized the 2600 ft, seeming to miss the point of my question so I asked again, 'confirm left turn direct goret,' and received '...direct goret.' note that our carrier is never assigned the published SID. On 8 departures in the last 3 weeks I had turned left at acceleration altitude (400 ft AGL) without objection by ATC. At the end of the runway, we were cleared for takeoff without any departure restrs. We read back that we were cleared for takeoff and the absence of any heading assignment in our readback was not corrected. We took off and turned at our acceleration altitude as we understood our clearance to be. Tower did not object to our turn and switched us to departure control as we passed about 2000 ft MSL. The approach controller told us that tower had instructed us to maintain runway heading and that we had not been cleared to turn on course. Contributing factors: 1) guadeloupe controllers habitually give incomplete clrncs, omitting route, clearance limit, departure frequency, etc. Only a 'understand...' readback gets the full story. Even then, they won't assign a routing if they want you on a vector initially. 2) communication difficulties in language, terminology and ATC technique. On this day, the native french-speaking controllers replied before our xmissions are complete and misunderstood our report of passing FL160 for FL180 as 'level FL160.' 3) hurried taxi, doing taxi checks, departure/takeoff brief, and flight instrument checks while expediting an already short taxi did nothing to ease the communications with local control. 4) failure of ATC to utilize published departures which would have eliminated all confusion. (Side note: an aircraft had passed the runway from south to north while we back tracked. We do not believe there was a conflict with this aircraft since our TCASII did not provide a warning. This aircraft may have been the reason that approach wanted us on runway heading.) recommendations: 1) ATC give complete clrncs utilizing published procedures. 2) flight crew request same. 3) flight crew take things one at a time, ie, separate tasks (copying clearance, taxi checks, takeoff brief, etc) vice doing it all at once.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ATR42 FO'S RPT ON THE COMPLEXITIES OF UNDERSTANDING ATC CLRNC AND THE ATC DELIVERY TECHNIQUES USED FOR ACR ACFT AT GUADELOUPE, TFFR, FO.

Narrative: AFTER BEING ASKED TO 'BACKTRACK QUICKLY,' THE TWR PASSED AN ATC CLRNC THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN 'CLB TO 2600 FT, SQUAWK XX.' AFTER CONFIRMING THESE NUMBERS, I ASKED FOR A RTE CLRNC, 'RAIZET CONFIRM CLRED L TURN DIRECT GORET, AS FILED, CLB 2600 FT, SQUAWK XX.' WE HEARD A REPLY TO THE EFFECT OF '...DIRECT GORET, 2600 FT.' IT SEEMED THAT HE HAD BEGUN HIS XMISSION BEFORE MINE WAS COMPLETE. HE ALSO EMPHASIZED THE 2600 FT, SEEMING TO MISS THE POINT OF MY QUESTION SO I ASKED AGAIN, 'CONFIRM L TURN DIRECT GORET,' AND RECEIVED '...DIRECT GORET.' NOTE THAT OUR CARRIER IS NEVER ASSIGNED THE PUBLISHED SID. ON 8 DEPS IN THE LAST 3 WKS I HAD TURNED L AT ACCELERATION ALT (400 FT AGL) WITHOUT OBJECTION BY ATC. AT THE END OF THE RWY, WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF WITHOUT ANY DEP RESTRS. WE READ BACK THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY HEADING ASSIGNMENT IN OUR READBACK WAS NOT CORRECTED. WE TOOK OFF AND TURNED AT OUR ACCELERATION ALT AS WE UNDERSTOOD OUR CLRNC TO BE. TWR DID NOT OBJECT TO OUR TURN AND SWITCHED US TO DEP CTL AS WE PASSED ABOUT 2000 FT MSL. THE APCH CTLR TOLD US THAT TWR HAD INSTRUCTED US TO MAINTAIN RWY HEADING AND THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN CLRED TO TURN ON COURSE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) GUADELOUPE CTLRS HABITUALLY GIVE INCOMPLETE CLRNCS, OMITTING RTE, CLRNC LIMIT, DEP FREQ, ETC. ONLY A 'UNDERSTAND...' READBACK GETS THE FULL STORY. EVEN THEN, THEY WON'T ASSIGN A ROUTING IF THEY WANT YOU ON A VECTOR INITIALLY. 2) COM DIFFICULTIES IN LANGUAGE, TERMINOLOGY AND ATC TECHNIQUE. ON THIS DAY, THE NATIVE FRENCH-SPEAKING CTLRS REPLIED BEFORE OUR XMISSIONS ARE COMPLETE AND MISUNDERSTOOD OUR RPT OF PASSING FL160 FOR FL180 AS 'LEVEL FL160.' 3) HURRIED TAXI, DOING TAXI CHKS, DEP/TKOF BRIEF, AND FLT INST CHKS WHILE EXPEDITING AN ALREADY SHORT TAXI DID NOTHING TO EASE THE COMS WITH LCL CTL. 4) FAILURE OF ATC TO UTILIZE PUBLISHED DEPS WHICH WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED ALL CONFUSION. (SIDE NOTE: AN ACFT HAD PASSED THE RWY FROM S TO N WHILE WE BACK TRACKED. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A CONFLICT WITH THIS ACFT SINCE OUR TCASII DID NOT PROVIDE A WARNING. THIS ACFT MAY HAVE BEEN THE REASON THAT APCH WANTED US ON RWY HEADING.) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) ATC GIVE COMPLETE CLRNCS UTILIZING PUBLISHED PROCS. 2) FLC REQUEST SAME. 3) FLC TAKE THINGS ONE AT A TIME, IE, SEPARATE TASKS (COPYING CLRNC, TAXI CHKS, TKOF BRIEF, ETC) VICE DOING IT ALL AT ONCE.

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.