I had this a few months ago out of SNN. "Climb straight ahead" was the clnc.
I thought it meant RWY track as the rwy has an omnidirectional departure. We had a X-Wind of about 55-65 knots at 1000ft agl
So I applied the drift correction. We ended up having a debate with the next controller about the heading.
It does say in Pan Ops, Doc 4444 and Doc 8168 that it is meant to be track so that is what I done. If we had been on RWY hdg we would have ended up outside protected centre line coverage (15 degrees) such was the wind therefore not giving any guaranteed terrain separation.
8168:3.1 "Where no track guidance is provided in the design, the departure criteria are developed by Omnidirectional method."
3.3 " unless otherwise specified, departure procedures are developed on the assumption of a 3.3 PDG and a straight climb on the extended runway centre line until reaching 120m (394ft) above the aerodrome elevation."
1.3.8 "Pilots should not accept radar vectors during departure unless:
a. they are above the minimum altitude(s)/ height(s) required to maintain obstacle clearance in the event of engine failure. This relates to engine failure between V1 and minimum sector altitude or the end of the contingency procedure as appropriate; or
b. the departure route in non-critical with respect to obstacle clearance."
I notice nobody cares about track but in an engine failure with not much climb performance this is the most important of factors. If outside of the protected and on one engine there is no guarantee of anything.
So if it's a large X-Wind I am going to fly track. If not a hdg. I think it does need to be resolved though. On engine failure my SOPS are to track straight ahead and that is what I would do.
