Narrative:

We were cleared via the loupe seven departure to linden. WX was clear and 20 mi visibility. We had briefed the departure during the taxi. We took off from runway 30L. I was flying the aircraft. At 1.8 DME a turn to 120 degree was initiated. While in the turn outside vigilance was maintained by both pilots. A light twin engine aircraft was spotted approaching in the opp direction slightly higher than us. This aircraft was not issued to us by bay departure so I assumed it was 'VFR' traffic. As we closed in on the traffic, assuming it to be VFR and that it might at any time descend or turn into us, I kept an almost constant watch on it. Simultaneously the master caution activated. The first officer notified me of this and I instructed her to see what the problem was. Her head went down to find the #1 channel of the pitch trim had disengaged. I instructed her to reset the pitch trim which she did and reported it reengaged. I then asked her to call approach about this traffic and almost immediately thereafter approach called us and asked our altitude. We were at 5500', having inadvertently climbed above 5000'. We immediately went back to 5000' and was then by the 047 degree sjc right and cleared up to FL230. Then instructed to cross the sjc VOR at 12000' and 9 DME north at 14000' to maintain FL230. No traffic alert conflict had occurred. We were above our altitude for a very short time. I do not recall hearing the altitude alerter sound but the first officer does. She was busy and thought we were leveling and going back to 5000' knowing we were just about at the VOR right which allowed us to climb up to 12000'. In subsequent conversations with the first officer, bay approach, and sjc FSDO the following was noted. We were not issued the light twin as traffic although departure was not busy. If I had known this aircraft to have been IFR in positive control I would not have focused my attention on it. There was a great deal of confusion in issuing subsequent climb altitude ie, climb to FL230 and then corrected by issuing altitude restrictions. Although not a particular problem with us, we were informed that a problem exists with aircraft not adhering to the altitude restriction on the SID. I believe the problem to be the way the clearance is given. 'Loupe seven, maintain FL230.' this certainly is ambiguous since any altitude given subsequently normally supercedes previous altitudes and restrictions unless you are specifically advised that 'all previous restrictions apply', I am not aware of the specifics in regulations but am knowledgeable of operations and clearance from around the country. If an altitude is to be maintained which is not on the SID or is different, (either higher or lower) it is issued after the SID name. I believe that pilots are interpreting the maintain FL230 as a change to the SID altitude and thus eliminating previous altitudes and restrictions. To eleviate this problem, clearance delivery should issue the clearance with the statement 'all altitude restrictions apply', make FL230 or some lower altitude the SID altitude and publish it with the SID, thus eliminating the need to stipulate any altitude in the clearance except the expect altitude 10 mins after departure. Contributing factors to our situation I consider to be: operating VMC on an IFR plan in a terminal area. No traffic issued even though it could have become a conflict. First officer was experienced but new in type with some 35 hours which may have slowed reaction time in handling the system discrepancy. Although crew was just reporting on duty for the day and had been off duty for 11 hours, we had flown a red eye (east coast time) the night before.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BIZJET MDT OVERSHOOTS A SID ALT DUE FLT CREW DISTR TRAFFIC WATCH EQUIPMENT PROBLEM.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED VIA THE LOUPE SEVEN DEP TO LINDEN. WX WAS CLR AND 20 MI VISIBILITY. WE HAD BRIEFED THE DEP DURING THE TAXI. WE TOOK OFF FROM RWY 30L. I WAS FLYING THE ACFT. AT 1.8 DME A TURN TO 120 DEG WAS INITIATED. WHILE IN THE TURN OUTSIDE VIGILANCE WAS MAINTAINED BY BOTH PLTS. A LIGHT TWIN ENG ACFT WAS SPOTTED APCHING IN THE OPP DIRECTION SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN US. THIS ACFT WAS NOT ISSUED TO US BY BAY DEP SO I ASSUMED IT WAS 'VFR' TFC. AS WE CLOSED IN ON THE TFC, ASSUMING IT TO BE VFR AND THAT IT MIGHT AT ANY TIME DSND OR TURN INTO US, I KEPT AN ALMOST CONSTANT WATCH ON IT. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE MASTER CAUTION ACTIVATED. THE F/O NOTIFIED ME OF THIS AND I INSTRUCTED HER TO SEE WHAT THE PROB WAS. HER HEAD WENT DOWN TO FIND THE #1 CHANNEL OF THE PITCH TRIM HAD DISENGAGED. I INSTRUCTED HER TO RESET THE PITCH TRIM WHICH SHE DID AND RPTED IT REENGAGED. I THEN ASKED HER TO CALL APCH ABOUT THIS TFC AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER APCH CALLED US AND ASKED OUR ALT. WE WERE AT 5500', HAVING INADVERTENTLY CLBED ABOVE 5000'. WE IMMEDIATELY WENT BACK TO 5000' AND WAS THEN BY THE 047 DEG SJC R AND CLRED UP TO FL230. THEN INSTRUCTED TO CROSS THE SJC VOR AT 12000' AND 9 DME N AT 14000' TO MAINTAIN FL230. NO TFC ALERT CONFLICT HAD OCCURRED. WE WERE ABOVE OUR ALT FOR A VERY SHORT TIME. I DO NOT RECALL HEARING THE ALT ALERTER SOUND BUT THE F/O DOES. SHE WAS BUSY AND THOUGHT WE WERE LEVELING AND GOING BACK TO 5000' KNOWING WE WERE JUST ABOUT AT THE VOR R WHICH ALLOWED US TO CLB UP TO 12000'. IN SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE F/O, BAY APCH, AND SJC FSDO THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED. WE WERE NOT ISSUED THE LIGHT TWIN AS TFC ALTHOUGH DEP WAS NOT BUSY. IF I HAD KNOWN THIS ACFT TO HAVE BEEN IFR IN POSITIVE CTL I WOULD NOT HAVE FOCUSED MY ATTN ON IT. THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION IN ISSUING SUBSEQUENT CLB ALT IE, CLB TO FL230 AND THEN CORRECTED BY ISSUING ALT RESTRICTIONS. ALTHOUGH NOT A PARTICULAR PROB WITH US, WE WERE INFORMED THAT A PROB EXISTS WITH ACFT NOT ADHERING TO THE ALT RESTRICTION ON THE SID. I BELIEVE THE PROB TO BE THE WAY THE CLRNC IS GIVEN. 'LOUPE SEVEN, MAINTAIN FL230.' THIS CERTAINLY IS AMBIGUOUS SINCE ANY ALT GIVEN SUBSEQUENTLY NORMALLY SUPERCEDES PREVIOUS ALTS AND RESTRICTIONS UNLESS YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY ADVISED THAT 'ALL PREVIOUS RESTRICTIONS APPLY', I AM NOT AWARE OF THE SPECIFICS IN REGS BUT AM KNOWLEDGEABLE OF OPS AND CLRNC FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY. IF AN ALT IS TO BE MAINTAINED WHICH IS NOT ON THE SID OR IS DIFFERENT, (EITHER HIGHER OR LOWER) IT IS ISSUED AFTER THE SID NAME. I BELIEVE THAT PLTS ARE INTERPRETING THE MAINTAIN FL230 AS A CHANGE TO THE SID ALT AND THUS ELIMINATING PREVIOUS ALTS AND RESTRICTIONS. TO ELEVIATE THIS PROB, CLRNC DELIVERY SHOULD ISSUE THE CLRNC WITH THE STATEMENT 'ALL ALT RESTRICTIONS APPLY', MAKE FL230 OR SOME LOWER ALT THE SID ALT AND PUBLISH IT WITH THE SID, THUS ELIMINATING THE NEED TO STIPULATE ANY ALT IN THE CLRNC EXCEPT THE EXPECT ALT 10 MINS AFTER DEP. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO OUR SITUATION I CONSIDER TO BE: OPERATING VMC ON AN IFR PLAN IN A TERMINAL AREA. NO TFC ISSUED EVEN THOUGH IT COULD HAVE BECOME A CONFLICT. F/O WAS EXPERIENCED BUT NEW IN TYPE WITH SOME 35 HRS WHICH MAY HAVE SLOWED REACTION TIME IN HANDLING THE SYS DISCREPANCY. ALTHOUGH CREW WAS JUST RPTING ON DUTY FOR THE DAY AND HAD BEEN OFF DUTY FOR 11 HRS, WE HAD FLOWN A RED EYE (EAST COAST TIME) THE NIGHT BEFORE.

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.