|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : cma|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 1000|
agl bound upper : 1000
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : ntd|
|Make Model Name||Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng|
|Flight Phase||climbout : initial|
climbout : intermediate altitude
climbout : takeoff
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
pilot : instrument
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 30|
flight time total : 4000
flight time type : 40
|Affiliation||government : military|
|Function||controller : clearance delivery|
|Qualification||controller : military|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other controllera|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Consequence||faa : reviewed incident with flight crew|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
Received second IFR clearance (ema direct smo) from pt mugu clearance/departure control while on ground at camarillo airport. (Previous clearance received from pt mugu while operating in the same area from the same airport. Confirmed to call airborne after receiving IFR clearance.) on this departure, I took off thinking that I again was to call airborne after receiving the IFR clearance. Much to our (me and controller) surprise departure ATC of pt mugu didn't expect me to be airborne at that time. The departure from camarillo airport was uneventful, maintained VFR through 1000' AGL and did not cause a traffic conflict, as per ATC. One thing that might preclude surprises of this nature for pilot and controller is to have ATC provide an advisory to call ATC prior to departure from an uncontrolled airport in each and every ATC IFR clearance to avoid any confusion and misunderstanding. There was no intent on my part to depart west/O appropriate instructions and ATC acknowledge that there seems to be a common confusion on pilot's and ATC controllers for this type of departure from this airport (camarillo airport). The local FSDO's accident prevention specialists have been briefed by me to provide a future heads up. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated that the reason he called after takeoff and not before was because earlier in the day he had departed the same airport and his clearance included an instruction to call ntd departure control after airborne. When reporter talked to the TRACON supervisor by phone after this incident, he was told that the controller expected him to call on the radio to departure control for release from the non tower airport. This occurred during a very light traffic period and no conflict occurred. The principal problem caused by reporter departure west/O release was that he surprised the departure controller.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: GOV SMT DEPARTED A NON TWR IFR WITHOUT GETTING A RELEASE FROM DEP CTL.
Narrative: RECEIVED SECOND IFR CLRNC (EMA DIRECT SMO) FROM PT MUGU CLRNC/DEP CTL WHILE ON GND AT CAMARILLO ARPT. (PREVIOUS CLRNC RECEIVED FROM PT MUGU WHILE OPERATING IN THE SAME AREA FROM THE SAME ARPT. CONFIRMED TO CALL AIRBORNE AFTER RECEIVING IFR CLRNC.) ON THIS DEP, I TOOK OFF THINKING THAT I AGAIN WAS TO CALL AIRBORNE AFTER RECEIVING THE IFR CLRNC. MUCH TO OUR (ME AND CTLR) SURPRISE DEP ATC OF PT MUGU DIDN'T EXPECT ME TO BE AIRBORNE AT THAT TIME. THE DEP FROM CAMARILLO ARPT WAS UNEVENTFUL, MAINTAINED VFR THROUGH 1000' AGL AND DID NOT CAUSE A TFC CONFLICT, AS PER ATC. ONE THING THAT MIGHT PRECLUDE SURPRISES OF THIS NATURE FOR PLT AND CTLR IS TO HAVE ATC PROVIDE AN ADVISORY TO CALL ATC PRIOR TO DEP FROM AN UNCTLED ARPT IN EACH AND EVERY ATC IFR CLRNC TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING. THERE WAS NO INTENT ON MY PART TO DEPART W/O APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS AND ATC ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A COMMON CONFUSION ON PLT'S AND ATC CTLRS FOR THIS TYPE OF DEP FROM THIS ARPT (CAMARILLO ARPT). THE LCL FSDO'S ACCIDENT PREVENTION SPECIALISTS HAVE BEEN BRIEFED BY ME TO PROVIDE A FUTURE HEADS UP. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT THE REASON HE CALLED AFTER TKOF AND NOT BEFORE WAS BECAUSE EARLIER IN THE DAY HE HAD DEPARTED THE SAME ARPT AND HIS CLRNC INCLUDED AN INSTRUCTION TO CALL NTD DEP CTL AFTER AIRBORNE. WHEN RPTR TALKED TO THE TRACON SUPVR BY PHONE AFTER THIS INCIDENT, HE WAS TOLD THAT THE CTLR EXPECTED HIM TO CALL ON THE RADIO TO DEP CTL FOR RELEASE FROM THE NON TWR ARPT. THIS OCCURRED DURING A VERY LIGHT TFC PERIOD AND NO CONFLICT OCCURRED. THE PRINCIPAL PROB CAUSED BY RPTR DEP W/O RELEASE WAS THAT HE SURPRISED THE DEP CTLR.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.