A300
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion; Distraction
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Human Factors; Procedure
Very shortly after rotation and 'positive rate gear up' on an IMC (full IFR WX) from 25L at LAX; tower transmits for us 'cleared direct HIIPR' with their pronunciation as 'Hi-purr'. With my plate full transitioning the aircraft and performing what I consider things way more important during a flight critical phase than going heads down with FMS work to a point that registered with me as not even on my FMS ND (Navigational Display) or that I believed was not in my flight plan; I told them I would go runway heading and did so and complied with the altitude restrictions until abeam each of the first two points; HIIPR and EVOSE; at or below 3000 ft and at or below 5000 ft respectively. With hind sight I am sure they were taken back and felt that we had likely mis-programmed our FMS to go to DOCKR; as we were initially given 25R for takeoff and were then switched to 25L. They did not redirect my 'runway heading'. If they needed to intercede they did not. Three things led to this anomaly on the departure. First; I don't recall the tower using the normal protocol to say HIIPR included with the RNAV cleared to takeoff clearance and I am guessing simply stated it out at a most inopportune time after takeoff in a very focused and critical phase of flight during our full IFR; IMC take off. I do not recall ever getting a Nav clearance to a new waypoint below 1000 ft; VMC or IMC. Second; I have always used the phonetics of 'Hip-per' for this waypoint that is in the spotlight in this incident; (like the 'hip' between your abdomen and leg). That is why I did not recognize it for what it was. Third; I will NEVER give up my primary PF (Pilot Flying) or in this case; my PM (Pilot Monitoring) responsibility of backing up the PF for a safe trajectory on the jet during an full IMC ITO (Initial Take Off). Simply stated a couple different ways; Aviate; Navigate; Communicate; and in the primary; Aviating modern FMS airplanes; GYRO; Airspeed; and heading. So; hard to imagine I am sure; but 'Hi-per' did not register as HIIPR the waypoint with me because of years of use pronouncing it as 'Hip-per'; but that is it. (HIIPR was in the flight plan and active). Prior to flight we actually verified the same as the first waypoint (and of course flew right next to it on runway heading) after the first officer changed the loaded flight plan from 25R (at J) to 25L full length for takeoff. Human error; mine. Non-compliance; ATC? Drawn from my experiences in 2016 it is becoming more and more clear that air traffic control has limited knowledge of what is going on in the cockpit and they themselves are likely under considerable pressure under their workload; constraint and procedural protocols (recat; departures/arrivals per hour etc). I can't say I understand fully their load and responsibilities myself but the interface is becoming more and more frayed from my line flying experience. As a side but related note it struck me that going through Chicago last month 3 times; how the relatively simple departure in use there; for one of the busiest airports in the world; worked so well. I can say in LAX; I don't ever recall flying one of the departures without getting changes within the first 3-4 miles; every time. That is a provocative word; 'ever'. I quite frankly don't like being directed to new constraints below 3000 ft. I do it all the time. It just strongly suggests the system isn't designed optimally. Looks good on paper; flies pretty lousy; engine out profiles notwithstanding. The most common in LAX is you are dealing with an accelerating jet; a max altitude constraint programmed in; changing to a second max altitude constrain on the departure; and you are given a new heading to fly to and a new altitude; just about every time. It doesn't help that the Airbus FMS doesn't adhere to alt constraint in the FCP on climbs! For DME equipped aircraft; how in the world does Chicago get by with two MINIMUM altitudes at mileages and runway heading for every runway! It is called the O'Hare 2. Works for ATC; works for users (pilots)! Maybe change the north south VFR corridor that exists at the beach at LAX for those few VFR flyers?
To begin with; we got the usual knee-jerk at LAX: Told to expect one runway when pushing; then a change to the other runway shortly after that. We were still in the blocks waiting for traffic to pass when the change came this time; so it was not quite so bad as usual. My point here is; why does it almost always happen this way at LAX? Why can't they simply assign a runway and keep it that way? This may have been a contributing factor to what eventually happened to us. Moving on; we were assigned a SID for takeoff on the PDC. Upon taking the runway (25L); and given takeoff clearance; the controller said 'fly runway heading'. Almost IMMEDIATELY after takeoff; he says 'they want you back on the SID; cleared direct [HIIPR] (pronounced HI-Per).' PM responded 'that point is not on our flight plan'. We discussed it later and he thought the point was pronounced HIP-er. This points out another problem revealed in this event: The creative spelling of these fixes. We need to know how the controller is going to pronounce them. Many; many times in my experience we are given a clearance to a fix that neither of us can make out because it is pronounced differently than expected. It may be cute; curious; or funny to come up with creative spelling of these fixes; but is that really gaining us anything except confusion and a potential accident/incident? Anyway; the controller tried to argue with us for a second but the PM simply stated that 'we are flying runway heading as assigned' or something to that effect. So here is the biggest problem with this event: What kind of a nutty controller tries to make a major change like that immediately after takeoff; unless it is of a crucial safety/impending disaster nature? My feeling (and the PM's) was that this was simply a preference item; or more likely; that the tower controller had screwed it up and was trying to cover his tracks. How unsatisfactory is this; to try to get the PM to go heads down shortly after rotation for a non-critical navigational/FMS typing change? I was stunned that he would pull something like this. We were also taking off not too far in trail of the preceding aircraft (I think from a parallel runway; but not sure). What if the navigational change had resulted in loss of separation from them and the PM was still heads down?
A300 Flight Crew reported being given a PDC for CASTA7 and to expect Runway 25R. After taxi the runway assignment was switched to 25L and fly runway heading. After rotation the Controller stated; 'we need you back on the SID; proceed direct HIIPR' which the Captain did not recognize due to pronunciation and declined; remaining on runway heading.