Narrative:

The captain and I had waited approximately 15 mins for takeoff behind several light twins and single engine aircraft. During this time we discussed all this VFR activity departing ahead of us. Our initial assigned altitude was 3000' MSL. Unique to sna is a special climb procedure for noise abatement, which is the most restrictive in the us after takeoff and the power reduced for noise our attention was diverted due to our concern for the several VFR aircraft around sna. After we had passed through 3500' MSL coast approach told us to maintain 5000' MSL and that our initial assigned altitude had been 3000' MSL. We looked at the altitude alerter and it showed 10000' MSL. This is the altitude the alerter will automatically go to during any power interruption or uncommanded selection. Because of our concern for VFR traffic and high deck angle, (26 degrees initially and reduced to 15 degrees after cutback) and no altitude alert, we deviated from our assigned 3000' MSL altitude. I realized none of this takes away my responsibility for altitude compliance. There seems, however, to be a # of anomalies in both the ATC system and the aircraft system re: this problem. There have been several previous MCP changes which have been documented previously. I, too, believe that such procedure we are required to fly at sna are not consistent with the overall objective of safety. I ask, how do we rationalize a high performance jet aircraft required to perform unusual performance requirements with abnormally high deck angles while departing behind light, slow single and multi-engine aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALT DEVIATION. OVERSHOOT ON CLIMB.

Narrative: THE CAPT AND I HAD WAITED APPROX 15 MINS FOR TKOF BEHIND SEVERAL LIGHT TWINS AND SINGLE ENG ACFT. DURING THIS TIME WE DISCUSSED ALL THIS VFR ACTIVITY DEPARTING AHEAD OF US. OUR INITIAL ASSIGNED ALT WAS 3000' MSL. UNIQUE TO SNA IS A SPECIAL CLB PROC FOR NOISE ABATEMENT, WHICH IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE IN THE U.S. AFTER TKOF AND THE PWR REDUCED FOR NOISE OUR ATTN WAS DIVERTED DUE TO OUR CONCERN FOR THE SEVERAL VFR ACFT AROUND SNA. AFTER WE HAD PASSED THROUGH 3500' MSL COAST APCH TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 5000' MSL AND THAT OUR INITIAL ASSIGNED ALT HAD BEEN 3000' MSL. WE LOOKED AT THE ALT ALERTER AND IT SHOWED 10000' MSL. THIS IS THE ALT THE ALERTER WILL AUTOMATICALLY GO TO DURING ANY PWR INTERRUPTION OR UNCOMMANDED SELECTION. BECAUSE OF OUR CONCERN FOR VFR TFC AND HIGH DECK ANGLE, (26 DEGS INITIALLY AND REDUCED TO 15 DEGS AFTER CUTBACK) AND NO ALT ALERT, WE DEVIATED FROM OUR ASSIGNED 3000' MSL ALT. I REALIZED NONE OF THIS TAKES AWAY MY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALT COMPLIANCE. THERE SEEMS, HOWEVER, TO BE A # OF ANOMALIES IN BOTH THE ATC SYS AND THE ACFT SYS RE: THIS PROB. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL PREVIOUS MCP CHANGES WHICH HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED PREVIOUSLY. I, TOO, BELIEVE THAT SUCH PROC WE ARE REQUIRED TO FLY AT SNA ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF SAFETY. I ASK, HOW DO WE RATIONALIZE A HIGH PERFORMANCE JET ACFT REQUIRED TO PERFORM UNUSUAL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS WITH ABNORMALLY HIGH DECK ANGLES WHILE DEPARTING BEHIND LIGHT, SLOW SINGLE AND MULTI-ENG ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.