Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EAT.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [My company has a restriction] that says; when departing runway 30 in EAT; we are not authorized to use the [Obstacle Departure Procedure] due to the departure end of runway 30 being shortened. Instead; we are required to fly our engine inoperative turn procedure under a VFR climb clearance. Today; we obtained our IFR clearance to depart EAT runway 30 and requested a VFR climb to the EAT VOR and we were going to fly our turn procedure. The controller replied 'I cannot approve or deny that'. We were a little confused; and again told the controller we want a VFR climb to the EAT VOR and we're going to fly our turn procedure. The controller again replied 'I cannot approve or deny that'. Since we had our clearance to depart; and informed the controller of our intentions multiple times; we departed and flew the turn procedure. When we contacted the controller again after departure; he told us we are not on course; and need to fly the published departure procedure when departing. Nothing else happened; but obviously there is a huge disconnect between our company procedure and ATC's expectations. ATC is not aware or on the same page as us regarding our company procedures for EAT runway 30 departures.


Second narrative: Departing Runway 30 from EAT; as instructed by [company procedures]; we requested the climb in VFR conditions to the EAT VOR; so that we could comply with our TLR Special Engine Failure Procedure. The SEA Center controller responded to our request by stating he could neither approve nor deny that request. We then departed 30 and complied with the procedure. When ATC got us on radar; he asked what kind of departure procedure we were doing. I informed him we were complying with our company procedure. He told us that when departing; we are expected to comply with the charted Obstacle Departure Procedure. We were then cleared right-turn direct CASHS and on course.This event was caused by the abnormal and awkward departure restrictions placed on RWY 30. A climb in VFR conditions has always been a strange; somewhat gray method of operating. Some ATC controllers are fine with it; others are not. Requiring us to utilize this method of departure opens up all kinds of potential issues. Leading up to this event; we had already taxied around construction; back-taxied down the active runway of an uncontrolled airport; copied our ATC clearance on the ground while taxiing; and departed from an uncontrolled airport with other traffic in the pattern. That is task-saturating enough as it is. Adding on this extra procedure is a lot to throw on top of that; and when ATC doesn't seem to be in the loop on what we're doing; it leads to an event like this.


Synopsis: Medium transport flight crew reported that a special company EAT departure procedure conflicts with ATC expectations.