Narrative:

Due to operational reasons; the flight was operating behind schedule. We pushed at XXXX central. We were originally assigned the swtsr RNAV departure; 'climb via.' due to the time of push; the controller asked 'which runway we wanted.' we could see what she was getting at and in accordance with the 10-7 page and our desire to be 'good neighbors'; we requested 13R. She said okay and indicated she would get us a new departure as well.when we called for taxi; she issued taxi instructions and said she had our clearance. Since we had originally planned 13L; we left the brake set; got the clearance; reprogrammed the opc and FMC; rebriefed the departure and engine out procedure in accordance with company policies; and then taxied out.the clearance read to us was; 'krumm 4; mc alester transition; climb via...' we departed and flew the SID as published. I checked in with departure 'climbing via the krumm 4.' we were very shortly thereafter given a turn north and on course. Shortly after; departure asked; 'hey; what departure were you on....' I explained the noise considerations etc. And that it was tower assigned. He said; 'there are so many new departures here; I just can't keep track of them all.'we both wrote down 'krumm 4; mc alester; climb via' so I am confident we flew as cleared and as intended. The reason I am writing this; however; is because in an environment where we rely on RNAV departures and all their variants; the margin for error is increasingly slim. It certainly wouldn't be the first time there has been an ATC to ATC communication issue; but in congested; complex airspace like dallas; the consequences can be dire. For example; both of our clearances contained 'climb via.' the swtsr (original clearance) has a top of 7000'''. The krumm is 5000'''. The manner in which we were queried by the departure controller implied he thought we were still on the swtsr. Lateral navigation differences aside; had the top altitudes been reversed; it is easy to envision a scenario where ATC thinks you are going to level at 5000'''; and you climb to 7000'''; and into a loss of separation.I submit this report simply to highlight this issue. I understand the complexity of dfw area airspace; where there are from dal alone; twenty two published sids. I can't imagine the controller's tasks trying to keep them all straight in a dynamic environment with variable traffic and weather. It might be a good idea to at least standardize limit altitudes where feasible to mitigate threats and trap errors if necessary.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: When the flight crew of a B737-NG negotiated a more neighborly RNAV SID for departure from DAL with Clearance Delivery their Departure Controller was apparently not informed and asked the crew which of DAL's 22 SIDs they were on after giving them a 'direct to' clearance on course. When advised they were on the KRUMM the Controller verbally shook his head stating '...I just can't keep track of them all.'

Narrative: Due to operational reasons; the flight was operating behind schedule. We pushed at XXXX Central. We were originally assigned the SWTSR RNAV Departure; 'Climb Via.' Due to the time of push; the Controller asked 'which runway we wanted.' We could see what she was getting at and in accordance with the 10-7 page and our desire to be 'good neighbors'; we requested 13R. She said okay and indicated she would get us a new departure as well.When we called for taxi; she issued taxi instructions and said she had our clearance. Since we had originally planned 13L; we left the brake set; got the clearance; reprogrammed the OPC and FMC; rebriefed the departure and engine out procedure in accordance with Company policies; and then taxied out.The clearance read to us was; 'KRUMM 4; MC ALESTER transition; Climb Via...' We departed and flew the SID as published. I checked in with Departure 'climbing via the KRUMM 4.' We were very shortly thereafter given a turn north and on course. Shortly after; Departure asked; 'hey; what departure were you on....' I explained the noise considerations etc. and that it was Tower assigned. He said; 'There are so many new departures here; I just can't keep track of them all.'We both wrote down 'KRUMM 4; MC ALESTER; Climb Via' so I am confident we flew as cleared and as intended. The reason I am writing this; however; is because in an environment where we rely on RNAV departures and all their variants; the margin for error is increasingly slim. It certainly wouldn't be the first time there has been an ATC to ATC communication issue; but in congested; complex airspace like Dallas; the consequences can be dire. For example; both of our clearances contained 'Climb Via.' The SWTSR (original clearance) has a top of 7000'''. The KRUMM is 5000'''. The manner in which we were queried by the Departure Controller implied he thought we were still on the SWTSR. Lateral navigation differences aside; had the top altitudes been reversed; it is easy to envision a scenario where ATC thinks you are going to level at 5000'''; and you climb to 7000'''; and into a loss of separation.I submit this report simply to highlight this issue. I understand the complexity of DFW area airspace; where there are from DAL alone; TWENTY TWO published SIDs. I can't imagine the Controller's tasks trying to keep them all straight in a dynamic environment with variable traffic and weather. It might be a good idea to at least standardize limit altitudes where feasible to mitigate threats and trap errors if necessary.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.