Narrative:

Departure clearance via clearance delivery was climb to assigned altitude on runway heading. Tower cleared us for takeoff on runway 28 with no specific heading information. They subsequently switched us to departure, again with no specific heading information. Departure cleared us up to 9000 ft. As we leveled, still on runway heading they asked, 'oh, company number did you miss your turn...?' we responded that we had received nothing other than runway heading from the clearance. They kept us at 9000 ft and turned us to the first fix 'daily' to the south. No traffic conflicts were observed. Proceeded normally to orf. Observations: I think this incident highlights some ambiguities with the bwi departure procedures. We have become very accustomed to tower assigning headings out of bwi and in the absence of that, specific guidelines for post takeoff procedures are lacking. There are only 2 published sids, the paleo, and the swann, both to the east and north. South and west, into the heart of the class B are nebulous. Also the bwi 10-7 page departure noise abatement procedures are general, often different from ATC instructions and don't often tie into the paleo and swann. I think bwi may be a candidate for a total rewrite of airspace procedures, as it becomes a dominant presence in the area and not just a secondary airfield. ATC, in general, at bwi does an outstanding job with what they have, but unless they 'hold your hand' to the west and south, things could get colorful if someone goes lost communication. As a minimum, I think a generic 'bwi 3' type SID would work similar to the tpa 3 or the titan 5, etc.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER DEPARTING W OFF BWI FOR ORF ON RWY HEADING, THE CTLR CLRED THE FLT TO 9000 FT AND APPEARED TO FORGET THAT THE FLT WAS ON A HEADING.

Narrative: DEP CLRNC VIA CLRNC DELIVERY WAS CLB TO ASSIGNED ALT ON RWY HEADING. TWR CLRED US FOR TKOF ON RWY 28 WITH NO SPECIFIC HEADING INFO. THEY SUBSEQUENTLY SWITCHED US TO DEP, AGAIN WITH NO SPECIFIC HEADING INFO. DEP CLRED US UP TO 9000 FT. AS WE LEVELED, STILL ON RWY HEADING THEY ASKED, 'OH, COMPANY NUMBER DID YOU MISS YOUR TURN...?' WE RESPONDED THAT WE HAD RECEIVED NOTHING OTHER THAN RWY HEADING FROM THE CLRNC. THEY KEPT US AT 9000 FT AND TURNED US TO THE FIRST FIX 'DAILY' TO THE S. NO TFC CONFLICTS WERE OBSERVED. PROCEEDED NORMALLY TO ORF. OBSERVATIONS: I THINK THIS INCIDENT HIGHLIGHTS SOME AMBIGUITIES WITH THE BWI DEP PROCS. WE HAVE BECOME VERY ACCUSTOMED TO TWR ASSIGNING HEADINGS OUT OF BWI AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR POST TKOF PROCS ARE LACKING. THERE ARE ONLY 2 PUBLISHED SIDS, THE PALEO, AND THE SWANN, BOTH TO THE E AND N. S AND W, INTO THE HEART OF THE CLASS B ARE NEBULOUS. ALSO THE BWI 10-7 PAGE DEP NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS ARE GENERAL, OFTEN DIFFERENT FROM ATC INSTRUCTIONS AND DON'T OFTEN TIE INTO THE PALEO AND SWANN. I THINK BWI MAY BE A CANDIDATE FOR A TOTAL REWRITE OF AIRSPACE PROCS, AS IT BECOMES A DOMINANT PRESENCE IN THE AREA AND NOT JUST A SECONDARY AIRFIELD. ATC, IN GENERAL, AT BWI DOES AN OUTSTANDING JOB WITH WHAT THEY HAVE, BUT UNLESS THEY 'HOLD YOUR HAND' TO THE W AND S, THINGS COULD GET COLORFUL IF SOMEONE GOES LOST COM. AS A MINIMUM, I THINK A GENERIC 'BWI 3' TYPE SID WOULD WORK SIMILAR TO THE TPA 3 OR THE TITAN 5, ETC.

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.