Narrative:

Due to MEL 30-06; which requires the flight to be operated in non-icing conditions; we were filed at 11000 ft and received the garland two departure. We verified the routing; including the departure; but no mention was made that the garland two is a non-RNAV departure. On departure; at 400 ft AGL; I called for navigation; and at 600 ft autoplt on. Captain complied. We began to enter a left turn immediately towards the TTT VOR. Captain spoke up right away and said he forgot to mention this was a non RNAV procedure; and to turn back to 174 degrees immediately (runway heading). I disconnected the autoplt; hand-flew back to runway heading. Additionally; ATC was apparently also confused about our clearance. After the above event; they gave us vectors and a climb up to 17000 ft -- our filed altitude was only 11000 ft. We accepted because skies were clear with no chance of icing per our MEL. As we were passing through 12000 ft we contacted the next controller who told us to maintain 11000 ft. Captain explained our MEL to him and that we were already cleared to 17000 ft and could accept higher if needed. One contributing factor was law of exercise -- leaving dfw; we always select navigation at 400 ft AGL; and neither the captain nor I were prepared to select heading instead; we did what we always do. The same goes for ATC giving us 17000 ft even though we were filed at 11000 ft. They know we always go higher; so never would have thought we were filed at 11000 ft. I also feel that the captain was extremely distraction and agitated. Immediately prior to our flight; he was in the chief pilot's office in a heated discussion about an event that happened the previous week. He vented about the meeting the whole way to the runway; and I had to interrupt him to talk to ground control. Looking at my mfd on taxi I thought the immediate left turn to TTT looked odd and wanted to confirm the departure; but captain was ranting about his meeting and I never could get a word in. After the above event occurred; he admitted that 1) he should have briefed me that this was a radar vector departure; and that 2) the added distraction and pressure of a stressful meeting immediately preceding our flight caused him to not brief the procedure correctly. I know I for one will pay special attention to any departure or STAR that is unfamiliar to me. Even though captain briefed the departure; I should have looked at it myself and I probably would have caught that it was radar vectors. If a sterile cockpit would have been maintained during taxi; I would have been able to query captain about the departure since it looked strange to me on the mfd; and he would have told me it was radar vectors and I never would have called for navigation instead of heading. Finally; a simple 'imsafe' checklist would have helped captain realize his meeting in the chief pilot's office was affecting his job performance (stress). It was a chain of broken links that lead to the event. Fix any one of these links; and there would have never been an event. Supplemental information from acn 804666: ATC reassigned us heading and altitude and we complied with their instructions. ATC contacted us shortly after our turn; and we were given a phone number to contact them. An unfamiliar departure; combined with a lack of heading information from tower; and a junior pilot.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ700 CREW FAILED TO FLY THE NON RNAV DFW GARLAND TWO SID. THE TRACK DEV REQUIRED AN ATC VECTOR. AN AGITATED CAPT AND JUNIOR FO WERE FACTORS.

Narrative: DUE TO MEL 30-06; WHICH REQUIRES THE FLT TO BE OPERATED IN NON-ICING CONDITIONS; WE WERE FILED AT 11000 FT AND RECEIVED THE GARLAND TWO DEP. WE VERIFIED THE ROUTING; INCLUDING THE DEP; BUT NO MENTION WAS MADE THAT THE GARLAND TWO IS A NON-RNAV DEP. ON DEP; AT 400 FT AGL; I CALLED FOR NAV; AND AT 600 FT AUTOPLT ON. CAPT COMPLIED. WE BEGAN TO ENTER A L TURN IMMEDIATELY TOWARDS THE TTT VOR. CAPT SPOKE UP RIGHT AWAY AND SAID HE FORGOT TO MENTION THIS WAS A NON RNAV PROC; AND TO TURN BACK TO 174 DEGS IMMEDIATELY (RWY HDG). I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT; HAND-FLEW BACK TO RWY HDG. ADDITIONALLY; ATC WAS APPARENTLY ALSO CONFUSED ABOUT OUR CLRNC. AFTER THE ABOVE EVENT; THEY GAVE US VECTORS AND A CLB UP TO 17000 FT -- OUR FILED ALT WAS ONLY 11000 FT. WE ACCEPTED BECAUSE SKIES WERE CLR WITH NO CHANCE OF ICING PER OUR MEL. AS WE WERE PASSING THROUGH 12000 FT WE CONTACTED THE NEXT CTLR WHO TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 11000 FT. CAPT EXPLAINED OUR MEL TO HIM AND THAT WE WERE ALREADY CLRED TO 17000 FT AND COULD ACCEPT HIGHER IF NEEDED. ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS LAW OF EXERCISE -- LEAVING DFW; WE ALWAYS SELECT NAV AT 400 FT AGL; AND NEITHER THE CAPT NOR I WERE PREPARED TO SELECT HDG INSTEAD; WE DID WHAT WE ALWAYS DO. THE SAME GOES FOR ATC GIVING US 17000 FT EVEN THOUGH WE WERE FILED AT 11000 FT. THEY KNOW WE ALWAYS GO HIGHER; SO NEVER WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WE WERE FILED AT 11000 FT. I ALSO FEEL THAT THE CAPT WAS EXTREMELY DISTR AND AGITATED. IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO OUR FLT; HE WAS IN THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE IN A HEATED DISCUSSION ABOUT AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED THE PREVIOUS WK. HE VENTED ABOUT THE MEETING THE WHOLE WAY TO THE RWY; AND I HAD TO INTERRUPT HIM TO TALK TO GND CTL. LOOKING AT MY MFD ON TAXI I THOUGHT THE IMMEDIATE L TURN TO TTT LOOKED ODD AND WANTED TO CONFIRM THE DEP; BUT CAPT WAS RANTING ABOUT HIS MEETING AND I NEVER COULD GET A WORD IN. AFTER THE ABOVE EVENT OCCURRED; HE ADMITTED THAT 1) HE SHOULD HAVE BRIEFED ME THAT THIS WAS A RADAR VECTOR DEP; AND THAT 2) THE ADDED DISTR AND PRESSURE OF A STRESSFUL MEETING IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING OUR FLT CAUSED HIM TO NOT BRIEF THE PROC CORRECTLY. I KNOW I FOR ONE WILL PAY SPECIAL ATTN TO ANY DEP OR STAR THAT IS UNFAMILIAR TO ME. EVEN THOUGH CAPT BRIEFED THE DEP; I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT MYSELF AND I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT IT WAS RADAR VECTORS. IF A STERILE COCKPIT WOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED DURING TAXI; I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO QUERY CAPT ABOUT THE DEP SINCE IT LOOKED STRANGE TO ME ON THE MFD; AND HE WOULD HAVE TOLD ME IT WAS RADAR VECTORS AND I NEVER WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR NAV INSTEAD OF HDG. FINALLY; A SIMPLE 'IMSAFE' CHKLIST WOULD HAVE HELPED CAPT REALIZE HIS MEETING IN THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE WAS AFFECTING HIS JOB PERFORMANCE (STRESS). IT WAS A CHAIN OF BROKEN LINKS THAT LEAD TO THE EVENT. FIX ANY ONE OF THESE LINKS; AND THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN AN EVENT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 804666: ATC REASSIGNED US HDG AND ALT AND WE COMPLIED WITH THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. ATC CONTACTED US SHORTLY AFTER OUR TURN; AND WE WERE GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER TO CONTACT THEM. AN UNFAMILIAR DEP; COMBINED WITH A LACK OF HDG INFO FROM TWR; AND A JUNIOR PLT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.