Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 40; Flight Crew Total 1200; Flight Crew Type 110
Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Software and Automation; Procedure
I was flying on an instrument flight plan from SEE in San Diego to ZZZ1 outside of Denver and filed via Foreflight. The flight plan of direct was accepted but I assumed a SID. Given that SEE was MVFR I studied the departures including the Mission Bay Two (obstacle) Departure which seemed the most likely. I noted that this was a procedure which required tracking multiple radials of different VOR's; and I know from experience that modern glass panels (Garmin G600 and Garmin GTN 750) do not recognize these departures and they must be manually configured tuning the VOR's and radials.Shortly before departure; Foreflight via cellular connection gave me an expected route which was an odd route as it contained over 20 waypoints; but I programmed it into the Garmin GTN750 after engine start. There was no SID assigned. Normally when a SID is assigned its included in the expected route. So; I assumed SEE direct the MZB VOR. The weather was good VFR. So; I did not brief terrain clearance. When I called Ground Control; I was told it was a complicated route and asked if I was ready to copy it all down. I also advised that I had also received the route electronically. To make it faster I wrote the expected route on my knee board and followed along as the Controller gave it to me. I believe the route was the same; but I cannot rule out confirmation bias. I read the route back and received a 'readback correct'I took off on runway heading and noted that if I made an immediate turn to MZB I would not be able to out climb the terrain so continued on runway heading. It was VFR and I had the terrain in sight at all times. When I was handed off to Departure I was asked by the Approach Controller why I was not turning right. (presumably to follow the  obstacle departure). She further immediately called a terrain alert. I advised the terrain was in sight and was not a factor. The  Approach Controller then directed me to fly a heading and advised of a possible pilot deviation. It [is] possible that the Controller specifically called out the obstacle departure and I missed it due to confirmation bias. However; I believe the obstacle departure was not mentioned either due to it being a VFR day or common practice for the field and part of an unduly complicated clearance. The obstacle departure definitely did not populate as the Foreflight expected clearance like other SID's. I have screen shots of this. As a corrective action; I believe that obstacle clearances need to be built with waypoints and published like any other SID so they worked  with automated clearance delivery mechanisms and integrated avionics
A pilot reported they did not receive the obstacle clearance departure procedure or a SID from ATC or the Foreflight App. The reporter suggested obstacle departure procedures [ODP] automatically populate on the Foreflight software.