Narrative:

Issued a psp 2 departure to maintain 4000'. Departed on runway 12, then left to 090 degree heading. Controller then cleared us to climb to 13000', left turn, proceed on course. We discussed SID climb gradient before departure and new we would better the specified performance. However, we did not discuss a minimum crossing altitude for northwest of psp VOR, which was 7600' MSL and not indicated on the SID, but only the area chart and the low altitude en route chart. We concluded that the SID must take precedence over the MCA as shown on the area chart, since no mention was made in our clearance other than cleared to 13000'. In any case, we crossed the VOR nwbnd, not at 7600', but at 5100' MSL in clear and unlimited visibility. Terrain clearance was obviously not a problem, because we were climbing at over 3000 FPM. After discussing this problem with several other pilots, I discovered it is an area that lacks total understanding. At this point, I am still searching the regulations and aim to determine which is actually correct. In IFR conditions, this could be a critical determination. Sids and MCA's, etc, are all very basic concepts to IFR training, yet somehow a scenario such as this enters into a very grey area. First for my part, I intend to get this area of concern cleared up in my own mind, and follow through with a good determination of the correct and safe procedure. Secondly, I will attempt to disseminate my information to our company. Thirdly, I would like to find out what the controllers assume that we know re: a SID west/O a specific altitude restriction. Perhaps they could advise that a VOR has an MCA when it is included in a climb clearance. Perhaps you could have some of your experts address this in a 'callback' bulletin.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF CROSSING A VOR BELOW THE MCA WHEN ON A SID WITH RADAR VECTORING.

Narrative: ISSUED A PSP 2 DEP TO MAINTAIN 4000'. DEPARTED ON RWY 12, THEN LEFT TO 090 DEG HDG. CTLR THEN CLRED US TO CLB TO 13000', LEFT TURN, PROCEED ON COURSE. WE DISCUSSED SID CLB GRADIENT BEFORE DEP AND NEW WE WOULD BETTER THE SPECIFIED PERFORMANCE. HOWEVER, WE DID NOT DISCUSS A MINIMUM XING ALT FOR NW OF PSP VOR, WHICH WAS 7600' MSL AND NOT INDICATED ON THE SID, BUT ONLY THE AREA CHART AND THE LOW ALT ENRTE CHART. WE CONCLUDED THAT THE SID MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE MCA AS SHOWN ON THE AREA CHART, SINCE NO MENTION WAS MADE IN OUR CLRNC OTHER THAN CLRED TO 13000'. IN ANY CASE, WE CROSSED THE VOR NWBND, NOT AT 7600', BUT AT 5100' MSL IN CLEAR AND UNLIMITED VISIBILITY. TERRAIN CLRNC WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT A PROB, BECAUSE WE WERE CLBING AT OVER 3000 FPM. AFTER DISCUSSING THIS PROB WITH SEVERAL OTHER PLTS, I DISCOVERED IT IS AN AREA THAT LACKS TOTAL UNDERSTANDING. AT THIS POINT, I AM STILL SEARCHING THE REGS AND AIM TO DETERMINE WHICH IS ACTUALLY CORRECT. IN IFR CONDITIONS, THIS COULD BE A CRITICAL DETERMINATION. SIDS AND MCA'S, ETC, ARE ALL VERY BASIC CONCEPTS TO IFR TRNING, YET SOMEHOW A SCENARIO SUCH AS THIS ENTERS INTO A VERY GREY AREA. FIRST FOR MY PART, I INTEND TO GET THIS AREA OF CONCERN CLRED UP IN MY OWN MIND, AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH A GOOD DETERMINATION OF THE CORRECT AND SAFE PROC. SECONDLY, I WILL ATTEMPT TO DISSEMINATE MY INFO TO OUR COMPANY. THIRDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CTLRS ASSUME THAT WE KNOW RE: A SID W/O A SPECIFIC ALT RESTRICTION. PERHAPS THEY COULD ADVISE THAT A VOR HAS AN MCA WHEN IT IS INCLUDED IN A CLB CLRNC. PERHAPS YOU COULD HAVE SOME OF YOUR EXPERTS ADDRESS THIS IN A 'CALLBACK' BULLETIN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.