Narrative:

Our clearance out of ZZZ was via the zzzzz SID; zzzzz transition; with an initial altitude assignment of 4000 feet. After takeoff the tower handed us off to departure. I checked in with departure telling the controller that we were climbing out of (our current altitude) for 4000 feet via the zzzzz departure. The controller issued us a clearance to climb via the zzzzz departure.from reading memos that our union and company have issued in the past I remembered that a clearance of that sort means that we should climb to the top altitude on the departure procedure while complying with all constraints on the departure.since there are different top altitudes on this departure; and since I read these memos months ago; coupled with the fact that I have actually never been issued this exact clearance without the controller also stating an altitude I queried the controller to make sure that we were all on the same train of thought. I asked something like 'just to verify; that means we should climb to 16;000 feet via the departure?'the controller replied in the affirmative; verifying what I said/asked was correct. The controller had issued the clearance using standard phraseology and answered my inquiry in a professional manner. I was impressed with the departure controller.my only concern with this departure clearance was the fact that on all of these new departures at every airport I have used them at; not once has a controller used the standard phraseology of 'climb via.' they have always said something like 'climb via the zzzzz departure and maintain 16;000 feet.'I understand that the standard phraseology is meant to have less talking on the radio thus helping to relieve radio congestion but as a pilot I can tell you that the way most controllers are issuing the clearance (to include an altitude/top altitude) is much more re-assuring to us when we actually hear the number of the top altitude from the controller.I am reminded of the 'old days' when a ground controller used to issue a taxi clearance to a runway using one phraseology vs another one. One clearance meant that you could cross all runways that were not in use and another way of saying it meant that you could not. After years of runway incursions that phraseology was changed. I think that in the case of these 'climb via the zzzzz departure' we could learn that also having the controller issue the number of the top altitude as part of that 'climb via' would make for less confusion and less altitude issues over the long run; with only a minimal amount of additional talk on the radio. After all; if pilots ask for clarification; like I did; that will actually tie up the radio more than if the controller just issued the altitude as part of the clearance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The First Officer of an Airbus A320 reported they were issued a proper clearance; but asked for clarification to ensure the proper altitude.

Narrative: Our clearance out of ZZZ was via the ZZZZZ SID; ZZZZZ Transition; with an initial altitude assignment of 4000 feet. After takeoff the tower handed us off to departure. I checked in with departure telling the controller that we were climbing out of (our current altitude) for 4000 feet via the ZZZZZ departure. The controller issued us a clearance to climb via the ZZZZZ departure.From reading memos that our union and company have issued in the past I remembered that a clearance of that sort means that we should climb to the top altitude on the departure procedure while complying with all constraints on the departure.Since there are different top altitudes on this departure; and since I read these memos months ago; coupled with the fact that I have actually never been issued this exact clearance without the controller also stating an altitude I queried the controller to make sure that we were all on the same train of thought. I asked something like 'Just to verify; that means we should climb to 16;000 feet via the departure?'The controller replied in the affirmative; verifying what I said/asked was correct. The controller had issued the clearance using standard phraseology and answered my inquiry in a professional manner. I was impressed with the departure controller.My only concern with this departure clearance was the fact that on all of these new departures at every airport I have used them at; not once has a controller used the standard phraseology of 'climb via.' They have always said something like 'climb via the ZZZZZ departure and maintain 16;000 feet.'I understand that the standard phraseology is meant to have less talking on the radio thus helping to relieve radio congestion but as a pilot I can tell you that the way most controllers are issuing the clearance (to include an altitude/top altitude) is much more re-assuring to us when we actually hear the number of the top altitude from the controller.I am reminded of the 'old days' when a ground controller used to issue a taxi clearance to a runway using one phraseology vs another one. One clearance meant that you could cross all runways that were not in use and another way of saying it meant that you could not. After years of runway incursions that phraseology was changed. I think that in the case of these 'Climb via the ZZZZZ departure' we could learn that also having the controller issue the number of the top altitude as part of that 'climb via' would make for less confusion and less altitude issues over the long run; with only a minimal amount of additional talk on the radio. After all; if pilots ask for clarification; like I did; that will actually tie up the radio more than if the controller just issued the altitude as part of the clearance.

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.