Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Confusion; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Procedure; Human Factors
After on to hold clearance at MIA 26L was then cleared for takeoff as given a departure clearance that crew did not understand. When asked controller for clarification and repeat; instead controller stated to taxi clear or take off as he had traffic on 4 mile final. After takeoff was assigned runway heading and controller stated that this was an ongoing problem with crews from [our airline]. The PDC stated the WINCO 1 SID with the WINCO transition in the top of the body of the PDC. Below AFTER that was buried in verbiage the BSTER 1 WINCO transition. As this was a change to the above initial clearance but had no indication; ie (.....).to indicate a change to routing on flight plan OR initial clearance above. As both SID initial heading was fly heading 272 heading we were on SID ROUTING and were able to comply with ATC and SID clearances. After runway heading was assigned heading to intercept point on SID and complied. The PDC method used at this airport is confusing and nonstandard to other airports we fly into; as evidenced by the controller's statement that this is an ongoing problem. Experienced flight crews repeatedly being confused should precipitate a change to the way the PDC or clearance is being issued for departure.
[Report narrative contained no additional information].
B757-200 flight crew reported confusion departing MIA because of what they called a 'confusing and non-standard' PDC format.