Narrative:

We were on a scheduled passenger mission from elko, nv, to san luis obispo, ca. We received our clearance as 'bullion (bqu), astnn, mina (MVA), clovis (czq), ksbp, climb to FL180.' tower cleared us 'for takeoff' with no other instructions, and then told us to contact ZLC about 1000 ft AGL. Upon checking in with center, we asked for any specific instructions and were told, 'not in radar contact, fly the published departure, climb to FL330.' our initial error was in misreading the departure procedure on the airport diagram page. The first procedure for runway 23 read 'runway 23 (V32 southwest) climb to 6000 ft, then climbing left turn heading 200 degrees to intercept the bqu R-241 (V32)' which is what we attempted to fly. If we had read further, 'runway 23 (all others), climb runway heading to 6000 ft, then climbing left turn direct bqu VOR, then...' our clearance would have made more sense. However, attempting to fly the first procedure made no sense. We could not understand why we were flying down V32, not proceeding to bqu VOR, climbing to FL330 and we could not understand how and when to proceed off V32 to astnn intersection. After passing FL180 with nothing further from ZLC, I queried center about our progress to astnn and advised we were tracking outbound 'above' V32 as published on the procedure. The controller replied, 'aren't you heading direct astnn?' at this point, I decided discretion being the better part of valor, to proceed direct astnn -- now at FL200. Radar contact was finally established at FL280 and the controller told us 'you're not supposed to proceed 40 mi west on departure,' and handed us off to the next sector. Things that could have prevented this error: 1) reading the procedure more thoroughly prior to departure. If we had read the entire procedure more thoroughly and the fine print (no visual depiction) this error could have been prevented. 2) queried the tower on lack of direction other than 'cleared for takeoff,' but it was a clear day, we could see all obstacles. We didn't see any restr or prohibited airspace issues, and since we had been in radar contact with center the night before down to a few thousand ft, we didn't anticipate any issues with the departure. 3) not climbing above FL180 without knowing exactly where we were expected to go or being in radar contact. We thought we were flying the proper procedure, but were still confused as to how to rejoin our filed route. I should not have climbed above FL180 until those inconsistencies were resolved. For ATC: 4) not clearing us to FL330 upon initial check-in. Although the controller could not have understood our confusion, I feel that much of this problem could have been avoided if we had remained on our initial clearance to FL180 instead of immediately being cleared to FL330 on initial check-in.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C560 CREW FLEW THE WRONG OBSTACLE DEP PROC LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE COMMERCIAL CHART ARPT PLATE PAGE. THE ZLC CTLR DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE RADAR CONTACT UNTIL PASSING FL280.

Narrative: WE WERE ON A SCHEDULED PAX MISSION FROM ELKO, NV, TO SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. WE RECEIVED OUR CLRNC AS 'BULLION (BQU), ASTNN, MINA (MVA), CLOVIS (CZQ), KSBP, CLB TO FL180.' TWR CLRED US 'FOR TKOF' WITH NO OTHER INSTRUCTIONS, AND THEN TOLD US TO CONTACT ZLC ABOUT 1000 FT AGL. UPON CHKING IN WITH CTR, WE ASKED FOR ANY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AND WERE TOLD, 'NOT IN RADAR CONTACT, FLY THE PUBLISHED DEP, CLB TO FL330.' OUR INITIAL ERROR WAS IN MISREADING THE DEP PROC ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM PAGE. THE FIRST PROC FOR RWY 23 READ 'RWY 23 (V32 SW) CLB TO 6000 FT, THEN CLBING L TURN HDG 200 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE BQU R-241 (V32)' WHICH IS WHAT WE ATTEMPTED TO FLY. IF WE HAD READ FURTHER, 'RWY 23 (ALL OTHERS), CLB RWY HDG TO 6000 FT, THEN CLBING L TURN DIRECT BQU VOR, THEN...' OUR CLRNC WOULD HAVE MADE MORE SENSE. HOWEVER, ATTEMPTING TO FLY THE FIRST PROC MADE NO SENSE. WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE WERE FLYING DOWN V32, NOT PROCEEDING TO BQU VOR, CLBING TO FL330 AND WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHEN TO PROCEED OFF V32 TO ASTNN INTXN. AFTER PASSING FL180 WITH NOTHING FURTHER FROM ZLC, I QUERIED CTR ABOUT OUR PROGRESS TO ASTNN AND ADVISED WE WERE TRACKING OUTBOUND 'ABOVE' V32 AS PUBLISHED ON THE PROC. THE CTLR REPLIED, 'AREN'T YOU HEADING DIRECT ASTNN?' AT THIS POINT, I DECIDED DISCRETION BEING THE BETTER PART OF VALOR, TO PROCEED DIRECT ASTNN -- NOW AT FL200. RADAR CONTACT WAS FINALLY ESTABLISHED AT FL280 AND THE CTLR TOLD US 'YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO PROCEED 40 MI W ON DEP,' AND HANDED US OFF TO THE NEXT SECTOR. THINGS THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS ERROR: 1) READING THE PROC MORE THOROUGHLY PRIOR TO DEP. IF WE HAD READ THE ENTIRE PROC MORE THOROUGHLY AND THE FINE PRINT (NO VISUAL DEPICTION) THIS ERROR COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. 2) QUERIED THE TWR ON LACK OF DIRECTION OTHER THAN 'CLRED FOR TKOF,' BUT IT WAS A CLR DAY, WE COULD SEE ALL OBSTACLES. WE DIDN'T SEE ANY RESTR OR PROHIBITED AIRSPACE ISSUES, AND SINCE WE HAD BEEN IN RADAR CONTACT WITH CTR THE NIGHT BEFORE DOWN TO A FEW THOUSAND FT, WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES WITH THE DEP. 3) NOT CLBING ABOVE FL180 WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE EXPECTED TO GO OR BEING IN RADAR CONTACT. WE THOUGHT WE WERE FLYING THE PROPER PROC, BUT WERE STILL CONFUSED AS TO HOW TO REJOIN OUR FILED RTE. I SHOULD NOT HAVE CLBED ABOVE FL180 UNTIL THOSE INCONSISTENCIES WERE RESOLVED. FOR ATC: 4) NOT CLRING US TO FL330 UPON INITIAL CHK-IN. ALTHOUGH THE CTLR COULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD OUR CONFUSION, I FEEL THAT MUCH OF THIS PROB COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF WE HAD REMAINED ON OUR INITIAL CLRNC TO FL180 INSTEAD OF IMMEDIATELY BEING CLRED TO FL330 ON INITIAL CHK-IN.

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.