Narrative:

ATC employing a clt STAR (MAJIC9) as a departure and en route clearance. Company filed 'roa...mayos...majic...MAJIC9.clt.' clearance delivery read us 'cleared to charlotte via the MAJIC9. After takeoff runway 24 fly heading 235 degrees.' flight crew took this combination to mean mayos was the first fix (though no first fix had been specified in the delivered clearance; as I believe is required). Departure controller issued heading 215 degrees to intercept the majic 9. Crew took this to mean intercept the majic 9 about 70 mi south; between mayos and majic intxns as depicted on our mfd. No mention had been made of the roa transition; or the 181 degree radial of roa VOR. We could at any time have flown direct mayos. The controller then yelled at us; 'where are you guys going?' and issued a 165 degree heading to re-intercept the course we never had expected or set up in the FMS. We then set up the leg from roa VOR to mayos and flew it. The vagary of the clearance was discussed with an roa supervisor later on the phone; and he insisted that they were unable to include the phrase 'roanoke transition' in the delivery of the clearance. From the pilot's perspective that would appear to be mandatory. Programming the roa VOR into the FMS before takeoff seems to be risky since the VOR sits about 4 mi from the field on a hill at 3000 ft MSL. If a pilot took off from either runway 24 or runway 33; hit navigation mode and flew to the VOR; they might not clear it. Thus; it seems to me; roa VOR should never be included in a departure clearance from roa. 1 human performance factor for us -- we had started the day early and were flying the 7TH leg on a 4-DAY trip. I honestly do not feel that contributed to the setup for the problem; but it might have negatively affected our reaction to it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CL65-200 PILOT REPORTS AN INCOMPLETE PDC ROUTING FROM ROA TO CLT ON THE MAJIC 9 STAR CAUSING CONFUSION AND A TRACK DEVIATION.

Narrative: ATC EMPLOYING A CLT STAR (MAJIC9) AS A DEP AND ENRTE CLRNC. COMPANY FILED 'ROA...MAYOS...MAJIC...MAJIC9.CLT.' CLRNC DELIVERY READ US 'CLRED TO CHARLOTTE VIA THE MAJIC9. AFTER TKOF RWY 24 FLY HDG 235 DEGS.' FLT CREW TOOK THIS COMBINATION TO MEAN MAYOS WAS THE FIRST FIX (THOUGH NO FIRST FIX HAD BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE DELIVERED CLRNC; AS I BELIEVE IS REQUIRED). DEP CTLR ISSUED HDG 215 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE MAJIC 9. CREW TOOK THIS TO MEAN INTERCEPT THE MAJIC 9 ABOUT 70 MI S; BTWN MAYOS AND MAJIC INTXNS AS DEPICTED ON OUR MFD. NO MENTION HAD BEEN MADE OF THE ROA TRANSITION; OR THE 181 DEG RADIAL OF ROA VOR. WE COULD AT ANY TIME HAVE FLOWN DIRECT MAYOS. THE CTLR THEN YELLED AT US; 'WHERE ARE YOU GUYS GOING?' AND ISSUED A 165 DEG HDG TO RE-INTERCEPT THE COURSE WE NEVER HAD EXPECTED OR SET UP IN THE FMS. WE THEN SET UP THE LEG FROM ROA VOR TO MAYOS AND FLEW IT. THE VAGARY OF THE CLRNC WAS DISCUSSED WITH AN ROA SUPVR LATER ON THE PHONE; AND HE INSISTED THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE 'ROANOKE TRANSITION' IN THE DELIVERY OF THE CLRNC. FROM THE PLT'S PERSPECTIVE THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE MANDATORY. PROGRAMMING THE ROA VOR INTO THE FMS BEFORE TKOF SEEMS TO BE RISKY SINCE THE VOR SITS ABOUT 4 MI FROM THE FIELD ON A HILL AT 3000 FT MSL. IF A PLT TOOK OFF FROM EITHER RWY 24 OR RWY 33; HIT NAV MODE AND FLEW TO THE VOR; THEY MIGHT NOT CLR IT. THUS; IT SEEMS TO ME; ROA VOR SHOULD NEVER BE INCLUDED IN A DEP CLRNC FROM ROA. 1 HUMAN PERFORMANCE FACTOR FOR US -- WE HAD STARTED THE DAY EARLY AND WERE FLYING THE 7TH LEG ON A 4-DAY TRIP. I HONESTLY DO NOT FEEL THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SETUP FOR THE PROB; BUT IT MIGHT HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED OUR REACTION TO IT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.