A CL65 FLC; CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 20; DEPARTS ON RWY 16 AT RIC; VA.

Narrative

DEPARTED RWY 16 WHEN CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 20. NO OTHER TFC IN AREA. SEVERAL POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) EARLIER IN THE DAY SAME CREW DEPARTING SAME ARPT (RIC) RECEIVED TAXI CLRNC TO RWY 16 AND HOLD SHORT RWY 20 AND THEN A SUBSEQUENT TKOF CLRNC ON RWY 20. AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT THE PIC BELIEVES CREW RECEIVED SAME TAXI CLRNC AND WAS THEN LOCKED INTO THE MINDSET OF DEPARTING RWY 16 AGAIN. 2) FO ANNOUNCED 'READY FOR DEP AT RWY 20' WHICH MAY HAVE CHANGED THE CTLR'S INITIAL PLAN IF HE DID WANT A RWY 16 DEP AT FIRST. AS A RESULT THE CTLR MAY HAVE GIVEN TAXI CLRNC TO RWY 16 BUT THEN A RWY 20 TKOF CLRNC. 3) BOTH RWYS BEGIN AT SAME POINT. 4) CREW WAS ALREADY 12 HRS INTO A 14 HR DUTY DAY AND ON LAST LEG GOING HOME. POSSIBLY A BIT OF GET THEREITIS. 5) RWY 16 IS THE LONGEST RWY; PIC MAY HAVE BEEN INTENT ON RWY 16 DEP. PROB WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL ACFT WAS IN A TURN CLBING OUT OF 400 FT AGL; WHEN THE CTLR INFORMED CREW THEY DEPARTED RWY 16 INSTEAD OF RWY 20. CTLR ALSO INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT A PROB. POTENTIALLY THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DISASTROUS BUT SINCE THE ARPT WAS FAIRLY QUIET THIS WASN'T. MOST OF THE BLAME OBVIOUSLY LIES WITH THE PIC BUT BOTH CREW AND CTLR MUST BE MORE VIGILANT AS TO WHAT ACFT IS DOING. ALSO RWY SIGNAGE COULD BE MORE CLR WHERE THE 2 RWY ENDS COINCIDE ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE IT MAY NOT HAVE HELPED. SHORTER DUTY DAYS FOR CREW WOULD ALSO REDUCE THESE TYPE OF 'END OF THE DAY' MENTAL ERRORS THAT COULD LEAD TO BIGGER PROBS.