SMT CLRED IFR DIRECT TO VOR FROM NON TWR FIELD. FLIES DOWNWIND PATTERN ENCOUNTERS OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC ON APCH TO IAD.

Narrative

A DEP CLRNC WAS RECEIVED ON THE GND AT MANASSAS ARPT; VA; PRIOR TO TKOF. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CLB TO 3000 FT AND PROCEED DIRECT TO CSN VOR WHICH IS SW OF MANASSAS. RWYS 34L AND 34R WERE IN USE AND THERE WAS TFC IN BOTH PATTERNS. RWY 34R IS A R HAND TFC PATTERN. WE CONTACTED DULLES DEP AND RPTED 'READY FOR DEP RWY 34R.' WE WERE RELEASED FOR TKOF AND AS WE LINED UP I REQUESTED A HDG AFTER DEP. I WAS TOLD TO 'PROCEED DIRECT TO CSN VOR.' WE DEPARTED AND CLBED IN THE R HAND PATTERN TO 3000 FT AND PROCEEDED DIRECT TO CSN VOR. APCHING 3000 FT I NOTICED AN AIRLINE JET OFF MY L WING; OPPOSITE DIRECTION ABOUT 1 1/2-2 MI AWAY (HARD TO ESTIMATE THE DISTANCE; IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE). NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS REQUIRED; BUT MIN SEPARATION STANDARDS MAY HAVE BEEN BREACHED. THE DULLES DEP CTLR ASKED US IF WE HAD SEEN THE OTHER ACFT AND THE COPLT REPLIED 'AFFIRMATIVE.' THE CTLR THEN SUGGESTED THAT OUR METHOD OF DEP WAS 'NOT A GOOD IDEA AS I HAVE TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION WITH THE INBOUND TFC TO DULLES.' HE THEN TOLD US WE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED RWY HDG UNTIL CLR OF THE TFC AREA AT MANASSAS AND THEN TURNED SW TOWARDS CSN VOR. THE CLRNC; AS WE WERE GIVEN IT; LEFT IT UP TO US TO DECIDE ON OUR METHOD OF EXIT FROM THE TFC PATTERN AND I PRESUMED THAT OUR R DOWNWIND DEP WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE; TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TFC IN THE PATTERN ON THE PARALLEL RWY AND AN APCHING VFR ACFT FROM THE NW. I BELIEVE THAT THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE MADE IT ABSOLUTELY CLR BEFORE DEP HOW HE WANTED US TO EXIT THE MANASSAS TFC PATTERN; IF HE CONSIDERED A R DOWNWIND DEP INAPPROPRIATE. (AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED; WE DID REQUEST A HDG AND WERE SIMPLY TOLD TO 'PROCEED DIRECT TO CSN VOR.). CLRNCS NEED TO BE CLR AND UNAMBIGUOUS ESPECIALLY IF ANY AMBIGUITY CAN LEAD TO A POSSIBLE TFC CONFLICT.