AN ACR MISINTERP THE INTENT OF A PUBLISHED DEP INSTRUCTION AFTER RECEIVING A VECTOR FROM ATC. THEY APPEARED TO BE CONFUSED DURING THE TRANSITION BTWN ATC HANDLING; AND THE PUBLISHED PROC.

Narrative

WAS INFORMED BY CHIEF PLT ON MAR/WED/95 OF IMPENDING INVESTIGATION OF A POSSIBLE DEV FROM THE 'PEARSON 1' DEP (SID); FROM CYYZ (TORONTO; ONT). WE WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY DEV FROM THE SID UNTIL INFORMED THE NEXT DAD. THE DEP WAS FROM RWY 33; THE SID STATES: AFTER TKOF; TURN L TO 320 DEGS; AND INTERCEPT AND MAINTAIN THE 343 DEG RADIAL OF YYZ. NO UNAUTH TURNS BELOW 3600 FT FLY THE RADIAL TO 4 DME TO 3600 FT; FOR RADAR VECTORS. AS BEST WE RECALL; AFTER TKOF; WE TURNED TO A HDG OF 320 DEGS AND CONTACTED DEP ON 128.8. AFTER CONTACTING DEP WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO TURN TO A HDG OF 090 DEGS. AT THIS POINT WE FELT THIS WAS AN AUTH THE SID HAD ENDED. THEIR RADAR TRACKS SHOWED US ALMOST A MI TO THE L OF THE 343 DEG RADIAL BEFORE TURNING TOWARDS THE RADIAL. WE MADE THE TURN AT 3600 FT; THEN CLBED TO 5000 FT. IT WAS OUR INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS; AS WELL AS ATC INSTRUCTIONS. I FELT THAT THE CONFUSION LIES IN WHAT IS AN 'UNAUTH TURN.' AND DOES ATC INSTRUCTION OVERRIDE A SID? I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK SO. ALSO; IF WE WERE NOT WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE BEN WHY DID ATC SAY NOTHING AT ALL TO US; OF THE SUPPOSED DEV? THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY POSSIBLE CONFLICT. ALSO; GIVEN A TURN SOON AFTER TKOF BEFORE FULLY ESTABLISHED ON THE SID MAKES FOR CONFUSION. THE WORDS; 'CANCEL THE SID' SHOULD BE USED WHEN ATC DESIRES THAT IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY OR WARRANTS OTHER ACTION BY THE FLC DURING THE SID. THIS LEAVES NO QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS TO TAKE PLACE.