PLT ACCEPTS IFR CLRNC WITH NO DEP PROC ISSUED. DEPARTS WITHOUT REFERENCING PUBLISHED DEP PROC.

Narrative

RECEIVED RELAYED IFR CLRNC UKI TO PAO FROM UKI FSS. CLRNC FROM UNCTLED ARPT DID NOT INCLUDE DEP INSTRUCTIONS. CLRNC WAS 'AS FILED VIA MENDOCINO VOR; ALT; ETC.' SINCE I NORMALLY FLY FROM A CTLED ARPT (PAO); I HAD THE MINDSET THAT THE RTE FROM THE ARPT (UKI) TO THE VOR WAS A DIRECT CLB -- SINCE NO PROC WAS SPECIFIED. I DID NOT RECHK MY IFR APCH BINDER -- WHICH IS UNDER PUBLISHED DEP PROCS. ANYWAY; AFTER TKOF; I BECAME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND MANEUVERED IN IMC TO AVOID TERRAIN. WHEN AN IFR DEP PROC EXISTS FOR AN ARPT; A 'PLT ADVISORY' AFTER THE RTE HAS BEEN RELAYED SHOULD STATE 'A PUBLISHED DEP PROC EXISTS FOR THIS ARPT.' THIS NOTIFIES PLTS USED TO RECEIVING DEP INSTRUCTIONS TO DOUBLE-CHK THEIR TKOF DEP RTE. SINCE HUMAN ERROR PLAYS THE DOMINANT ROLE IN ACCIDENTS; IT IS SOMEWHAT OPTIMISTIC TO ASSUME A PLT WILL GET A PROC RIGHT EVERY TIME -- REGARDLESS OF FAR 91.3(A). THIS CURRENT 'HOLE IN THE CLRNC SITUATION' IS DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO THE DEC 1974 ACCIDENT WHERE ACR COLLIDED WITH A VA; MOUNTAIN TOP DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING BY THE PLTS OF THEIR TERRAIN/CLRNC/ARR PROCS. ATC CLRNCS MUST BE CONSISTENT NO MATTER THE DEP POINT. HAD A SECOND PLT BEEN ON BOARD; THE DOUBLE-CHK AVAILABLE WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THIS SITUATION. I WILL NO LONGER FLY SINGLE PLT IFR. IN SUMMATION; THE PLT IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFE CONDUCT OF A FLT. ATC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TFC AND TERRAIN SEPARATION UNDER PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. HOWEVER; THE EXPECTATION OR 'MENTAL SET' OF A PLT; ESPECIALLY WHEN OPERATING IN AN UNFAMILIAR AREA; PROMOTES DELEGATION OF DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO ATC. THE LACK OF MENTION OF AN IFR DEP PROC -- ESPECIALLY WHEN A PLT IS USED TO RECEIVING ONE -- CAN CAUSE THE WRONG CONCLUSION/DECISION TO BE REACHED WITH POSSIBLE LETHAL CONSEQUENCES.