 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
B737 captain reported being confused by a 'climb via' clearance from ATC that did not agree with his pre departure clearance.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1302069 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201510 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | DEN.Airport |
| State Reference | CO |
| Environment | |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Climb |
| Route In Use | SID STAKR3 |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 235 Flight Crew Type 2273 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types |
Narrative:
STAKR3 SID out of den has a top altitude of FL230. Pre departure clearance limited that altitude to 10000. On initial communication with departure control the controller stated 'climb via the SID'. The first officer and I were both confused as to what he meant by that. Was it to maintain the top altitude as assigned on the pre departure clearance or the top altitude of the SID itself? So I asked for clarification from the controller and it was to climb to the top altitude of FL230. The very next aircraft that checked on was given the same exact clearance. He also questioned the clearance as I did. The controller stated to him that the clearance was valid and it canceled what was on the pre departure clearance. Whether or not it is valid I'm actually not sure. What I do know is that it was ambiguous and unclear not only to myself and my first officer but the aircraft behind me. Neither one of was sure what 'top altitude' to comply with. The RNAV sids are designed to cut down controller/pilot workload but I find that with confusing and ambiguous phraseology it ends up increasing our work load and the possibility of breaking an altitude.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 Captain reported being confused by a 'climb via' clearance from ATC that did not agree with his PDC.
Narrative: STAKR3 SID out of DEN has a top altitude of FL230. PDC limited that altitude to 10000. On initial communication with departure control the controller stated 'climb via the SID'. The FO and I were both confused as to what he meant by that. Was it to maintain the top altitude as assigned on the PDC or the top altitude of the SID itself? So I asked for clarification from the controller and it was to climb to the top altitude of FL230. The very next aircraft that checked on was given the same exact clearance. He also questioned the clearance as I did. The controller stated to him that the clearance was valid and it canceled what was on the PDC. Whether or not it is valid I'm actually not sure. What I do know is that it was ambiguous and unclear not only to myself and my FO but the aircraft behind me. Neither one of was sure what 'top altitude' to comply with. The RNAV SIDs are designed to cut down controller/pilot workload but I find that with confusing and ambiguous phraseology it ends up increasing our work load and the possibility of breaking an altitude.
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.