DEPARTING HSV; B747 FLC WAS CONFUSED BY AMENDED CLRNC AND TURNED EARLY; RATHER THAN FLY RWY HDG.

Narrative

AS I WAS NEARING A DEP FOR A FLT FROM HUNTSVILLE; I REQUESTED MY FO TO GET OUR CLRNC. WE RECEIVED 'CLRED HSV1 DEP; CLRNC AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: COMPLY WITH THE RESTRS ON THE HSV1 DEP; BUT RTE CHANGED TO DIRECT PRONE; DIRECT CHOO CHOO. THE FO READ BACK ALL INCLUDING 'DIRECT PRONE; DIRECT CHOO CHOO.' WE BRIEFED DEP; ENTERED THE NEW CLRNC POINT ON TO THE LEGS PAGE OF OUR FMC. THE HSV ONE DEP STATES: CLRED AS FILED. CLB VIA RWY HEADING OR AS ASSIGNED FOR VECTORS TO JOIN FILED RTE. THE FO AND I WERE BOTH CLR IN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED DIRECT PRONE. THIS IS WHAT WE BRIEFED; PLANNED AND EXECUTED. AT NO TIME WAS THERE ANY SUSPICION OR QUESTION THAT ANYTHING ELSE WAS EXPECTED. WE BELIEVED THE INSTRUCTIONS 'TO COMPLY WITH RESTRS' REFERRED TO THE ASSIGNED ALT. FOLLOWING TKOF; WE REACHED 500 FT AND COMMENCED A SHALLOW TURN TOWARDS PRONE. THE FO CHKED IN TO DEP WITH; 'DIRECT PRONE.' THE CTLR QUESTIONED; 'WEREN'T YOU ASSIGNED RWY HEADING.' WE RESPONDED IN THE NEGATIVE; THAT WE WERE CLRED DIRECT PRONE. SHORTLY AFTER WE WERE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE SUPVR TO DISCUSS A POSSIBLE 'PLTDEV.' SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SUPERVISORY HELPED TO DETERMINE THAT THE CLRNC WAS NOT EXECUTED AS THEY EXPECTED. THEY STATED THAT A 'PLTDEV' WOULD BE FILED WITH THE FSDO. THE SUPVR ADMITTED TO HAVING HAD SIMILAR PROBS IN THE PAST AND THAT THE CTLRS NEEDED TO BE MORE EXPLICIT IN THEIR DIRECTIONS. FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER PLTS FROM MY COMPANY REVEALED SIMILAR PROBS. MY DIRECTOR OF TRAINING RELATES THAT HE WAS GIVEN A SIMILAR CLRNC AND WHEN HE CHOSE TO HOLD RWY HEADING AS PER THE HSV1; THE DEP CTLR CHASTISED HIM FOR NOT GOING DIRECT. COM IS ONLY SUCCESSFUL WHEN IT IS UNDERSTOOD COMPLETELY. THE EXECUTION OF THIS DEP WAS FLAWED BECAUSE THE COM WAS INCOMPLETE. IF THE CTLR REQUIRED THAT RWY HEADING BE MAINTAINED; THEN HE SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED IT; PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PUBLISHED DEP INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE OF 'OR AS ASSIGNED.' WE EXECUTED THE DEP AS WE BELIEVE WE WERE DIRECTED. I BELIEVE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS LIE IN 3 AREAS: THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE DEP SHOULD BE MORE CLR. THE CTLRS SHOULD SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT THEY EXPECT AND AVOID UNCLR; OPEN REMARKS SUCH AS 'COMPLY WITH RESTRS;' CREWS MUST QUESTION ANY CLRNC THAT IS NON-STANDARD OR LEAVES POSSIBILITY FOR DOUBT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED OF NO RESPONSE FROM FAA. DURING DISCUSSION WITH SUPVR; THE SUPVR ACKNOWLEDGED SIMILAR DEP CLRNC INTERP EVENTS IN THE PAST.