WW24 FLT CREW QUESTIONED ABOUT DEP PROFILE AFTER AIRBORNE FROM MRY BY MRY TWR CTLR AND NCT SUPVR REF CONFLICT WITH OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC INBOUND TO MRY.

Narrative

I COPIED AN IFR CLRNC FOR OUR FLT FROM MRY TO VNY. THE CLRNC WAS 'MONTEREY 8 DEP AS FILED.' THE DEP PROC STATES TO CLB ON RWY HDG UNTIL REACHING 1000 FT; THEN R TURN TO 330 DEG HDG; CONTINUE CLB TO ASSIGNED ALT; UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE TWR. WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 28L AND ONLY ADVISED ABOUT TFC ON BASE FOR OUR RWY. NO OTHER INSTRUCTIONS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE TWR. JUST AFTER TKOF; WE UNDERSTOOD THE HDOF OF 'MONTEREY DEP.' AND WE MADE THE FREQ CHANGE TO NORCAL DEP CTL. FOLLOWING THE INITIAL CALL TO DEP; WE WERE ADVISED OF A POSSIBLE 'PLTDEV;' GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER TO CALL THE TWR UPON LNDG. THE DISCUSSION WITH THE TWR CTLR CONCERNING THE EVENTS; BROUGHT OUT SEVERAL AREAS OF CONFUSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF COMS ON BOTH SIDES. THE CTLR STATED THERE WAS A TFC CONFLICT ON OUR DEP PATH WITH ON-COMING TFC. WE HAD NO ADVISORIES GIVEN OF ANY TFC PRIOR TO OR DURING THE DEP. THE CTLR STATED WE WERE NOT 'CLBING AS FAST AS HE THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE' DURING THE DEP AND WERE; THEREFORE; SLOW REACHING THE 1000 FT LEVEL TO BEGIN THE TURN. FURTHERMORE; HE STATED WE MADE THE FREQ CHANGE WITHOUT BEING TOLD TO DO SO BY HIM. THE CTLR ALSO STATED HE HAD SEVERAL OF OUR XMISSIONS BLOCKED BY A PLT ON A SEPARATE FREQ; SO COMS WERE POOR AT BEST. THE DEP SID WAS WELL KNOWN BY ME. I FLEW THE AIRPLANE AS I HAVE ALWAYS DONE AS TO 'NORMAL FLT OPS.' I INITIATED THE TURN SHORTLY AFTER PASSING THE 1000 FT LEVEL. WE MADE THE FREQ CHANGE; UNDERSTANDING TO CONTACT MONTEREY DEP WHEN THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE FLYING THE 'MONTEREY 8 DEP.' (MISUNDERSTANDING OF COM DURING A HIGH WORKLOAD PHASE OF FLT.) THE TFC CONFLICT WAS WITH A VFR FLT ON A PRACTICE APCH IN VMC. (STATED BY NORCAL DEP SUPVR IN A SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION.) HAD THE CTLR ADVISED US OF THE TFC AHEAD PRIOR TO DEP; WE WOULD HAVE MADE THE CLB FASTER AND THEREFORE THE TURN SOONER. SINCE WE WERE EXPECTING THE HDOF AT THE POINT WHERE THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE FLYING THE MONTEREY 8 DEP; WE MISTAKENLY ASSUMED IT WAS THE HDOF TO CONTACT 'MONTEREY DEP.' NOT BEING FROM THAT AREA AND NOT KNOWING THE DEP CTL AGENCY IS CALLED NORCAL; WE ASSUMED IT WAS MONTEREY DEP CTL. THE TFC WAS A VFR AIRPLANE ON A PRACTICE APCH IN VMC AND NOT IFR ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. IN DISCUSSION WITH BOTH NORCAL SUPVR AND THE TWR CTLR; WE ALL UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN COM AND SOME ASSUMPTIONS ON THE PART OF BOTH PARTIES THAT LED TO THE SIT. THE TWR ASSUMED WE WOULD BE CLBING FASTER THAN WE DID AND I ASSUMED THE TWR WOULD ADVISE OF TFC PRIOR TO DEP. FURTHERMORE; I ASSUMED THE HDOF WAS GIVEN. BOTH NORCAL AND THE TWR CTLR STATED THERE WOULD BE NO FURTHER ACTION ON THEIR PART. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 591756: AFTER BEING GIVEN A FURTHER R TURN TO 360 DEGS BY DEP; WE WERE GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER TO CONTACT MONTEREY TWR AFTER LNDG. EITHER WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN CLRED FOR TKOF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION VFR TFC AND INSTRUCTED TO EXECUTE AN INCREASED CLB RATE AND IMMEDIATE TURN. AVIATION DECISIONS CANNOT BE BASED ON EXPECTATIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS.