Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OGG.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed OGG. The aircraft should have been cleared radar vectors to FITES; climbing to 050 (per the LOA). Instead; the aircraft departed on the ONOHI 2 departure; climbing to 050. On the ONOHI 2 departure; 050 is an unsafe altitude because it is below the MVA's.When I asked the pilot; he said he was cleared via the ONOHI 2 departure. When I called tower; they stated that they gave the aircraft radar vectors to FITES; climbing to 050. The sector 3 controller informed me that OGG Tower even specifically asked when they called for clearance on Aircraft X; if it would be radar vectors to FITES; and [controller] stated affirmative.As of right now; I'm not sure if this is a pilot deviation or an error by OGG Tower; so I will write it up both ways.If this is a pilot deviation; Aircraft X was issued radar vectors to FITES and instead executed the ONOHI 2 departure; upon takeoff. This is unsafe because we are expecting an aircraft to comply with control instructions.If this is an OGG Tower error; then...Per LOA - 'Tower must (for runways 2/5); clear aircraft via radar vectors to the first fix; maintain 5;000 feet MSL'If OGG Tower assigned the ONOHI 2 departure; then tower did not comply with the LOA because OGG Tower did not request release and inform me that Aircraft X would be doing the ONOHI 2 departure. Per the LOA - 'For oceanic departures; tower must request release of ONOHI and SWEEP departures.'Also; even if OGG Tower did issue radar vectors to Aircraft X; OGG Tower did not call me for the rolling call off; until after Aircraft X was in the air; and on my scope; another requirement per the LOA.I did give Aircraft X the brasher; and informed him to call HCF for a possible pilot deviation.


Second narrative: Filed an IFR Flight Plan OGG ONOHI2 BARBY FITES R578. My Co-Pilot received clearance from Maui Clearance and programmed our FMS for the departure. The Co-Pilot mistakenly entered flight plan route including incorrect Standard Instrument Departure. Maui Clearance gave us runway heading off runway 02 radar vector FITES intersection then as filed climb and maintain 5;000 feet expect Flight Level 410 10 minutes after; departure frequency 119.5 squawk XXXX. I reviewed the clearance the Co-Pilot wrote down on our flight plan sheet. I gave a full briefing of our taxi route to Runway 02; departure procedure for Runway 02 and emergency procedures during and after takeoff from Runway 02.When we departed Runway 02 off of Maui (OGG) the FMS was programmed to fly the ONOHI 2 departure. Instead of flying runway heading the aircraft climbed runway heading to 2;100 feet then turned right heading 115 degrees to join V15-22 to ONOHI Intersection. Tower asked if we were flying the ONOHI Two Departure which we responded yes. There was no traffic conflict with other aircraft. Tower gave us Honolulu Approach Control telephone number and advised us to call when able.We climbed to Flight Level 410 ran our cruise check and called HCF Approach and discussed the miscommunication of our departure clearance. The remainder of our flight was uneventful.As a result of this miscommunication I discussed that we are going to adopt a new procedure to our flight department. Both pilots will be present in the cockpit when receiving and programing the clearance into the FMS to avoid future mistakes.


Synopsis: HCF Controller and Corporate jet pilots reported confusion on departure clearance because pilots selected LNAV instead of heading mode.