CL300 flight crew reports not noticing the crossing restriction at roppr on the boach 5 RNAV from la...

Narrative:

After departing 19R on the boach five RNAV departure and passing the jaker waypoint; we noticed traffic at our 2 o'clock position less than 2;000 ft above us that appeared to be on a flight path that intersected with ours. I knew our climb rate would take us through the other aircraft's altitude very soon so I immediately leveled off at 8;000 ft. As I was leveling the aircraft off we received a TA alert with the 'traffic; traffic' audible. Precisely; at that time the non flying pilot asked ATC if we were still given an unrestricted climb of which ATC said we had not been. Realizing we were already above the altitude restriction at the next waypoint (roppr); I immediately began a descent out of 8;000 ft and as I was doing so we received an RA and a command to descend. I immediately descended further into the green band (to roughly 7;400 ft) to comply with the RA. Shortly after; ATC told us to fly a 180 degree heading and go direct to boach. Even after briefing the RNAV departure with the non-flying pilot (before engine start and on the taxi) if I would have simply asked about the climb to FL190 being unrestricted or reconfirmed that all the way points were 'at or above' with ATC this wouldn't have happened. For some reason (maybe because we are usually given an unrestricted climb) I thought that was our clearance. It wasn't. As the flying pilot; I could have easily avoided this altitude deviation. I take responsibility for being above the 7;000 ft restriction at roppr. It is possible that I assumed the unrestricted climb was in effect due to not seeing the word 'below' on the chart. Using the VNAV function of the automation until making sure from the departure controller that we are indeed cleared to the altitude clearance limit unrestricted. Anytime an RNAV departure is assigned triple check the altitude restrictions and what our actual clearance truly is. At some airports; the ATC tower will use the phraseology 'RNAV departure to xxxxx cleared for takeoff' when there is an altitude restriction that includes 'at or below' or say 'between 4;800 - 7;000' on some RNAV departures... When given this RNAV departure out of las; this might have alerted me that we were not given an unrestricted climb or have 'at or above' on all the way points.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL300 flight crew reports not noticing the crossing restriction at ROPPR on the BOACH 5 RNAV from LAS. A TCAS RA is generated and the crew takes evasive action. A runway change prior to departure may have contributed to the error.

Narrative: After departing 19R on the BOACH FIVE RNAV DEPARTURE and passing the JAKER waypoint; we noticed traffic at our 2 o'clock position less than 2;000 FT above us that appeared to be on a flight path that intersected with ours. I knew our climb rate would take us through the other aircraft's altitude very soon so I immediately leveled off at 8;000 FT. As I was leveling the aircraft off we received a TA Alert with the 'traffic; traffic' audible. Precisely; at that time the non flying pilot asked ATC if we were still given an unrestricted climb of which ATC said we had not been. Realizing we were already above the altitude restriction at the next waypoint (ROPPR); I immediately began a descent out of 8;000 FT and as I was doing so we received an RA and a command to descend. I immediately descended further into the green band (to roughly 7;400 FT) to comply with the RA. Shortly after; ATC told us to fly a 180 degree heading and go direct to BOACH. Even after briefing the RNAV departure with the non-flying pilot (before engine start and on the taxi) if I would have simply asked about the climb to FL190 being unrestricted or reconfirmed that all the way points were 'at or above' with ATC this wouldn't have happened. For some reason (maybe because we are usually given an unrestricted climb) I thought that was our clearance. It wasn't. As the flying pilot; I could have easily avoided this altitude deviation. I take responsibility for being above the 7;000 FT restriction at ROPPR. It is possible that I assumed the unrestricted climb was in effect due to not seeing the word 'Below' on the chart. Using the VNAV function of the automation until making sure from the Departure Controller that we are indeed cleared to the Altitude Clearance Limit unrestricted. ANYTIME an RNAV departure is assigned triple check the altitude restrictions and what our actual clearance truly is. At some airports; the ATC Tower will use the phraseology 'RNAV departure to XXXXX cleared for takeoff' when there is an altitude restriction that includes 'at or below' or say 'Between 4;800 - 7;000' on some RNAV Departures... when given this RNAV departure out of LAS; this might have alerted me that we were not given an unrestricted climb or have 'at or above' on all the way points.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1055587
Time
Date	201212
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	LAS.Airport
State Reference	NV
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Challenger 300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Climb
Route In Use	SID BOACH FIVE
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	Captain Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met Deviation - Altitude Overshoot Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

CL300 flight crew reports not noticing the crossing restriction at roppr on the boach 5 RNAV from las. A TCAS RA is generated and the crew takes evasive action. A runway change prior to departure may have contributed to the error.