Narrative:

Air carrier X had just departed san jose airport runway 30L and were flying the loupe-seven departure SID in a right turn to 120 degree, passing about 4000' when the departure controller stated I believe, 'C/south cleared direct the sjc VOR to one-two thousand, climb and maintain flight level two three zero.' I was unsure if he wanted us to continue our turn direct to VORTAC or cross the VORTAC at 12000' as we could not at this point make that altitude over the VORTAC if we proceeded direct. I asked the captain to clarify if the controller really wanted us to proceed direct at on-two-thousand, climb and maintain FL230.' response, 'all correct.' we assumed this to mean turn direct the VOR now, cross the VOR at or below 12000' then cleared to FL230. While continuing our turn from 120 degrees direct to the VOR, passing approximately 9500' departure control asked if we were going to climb any faster, we stated we were doing our best rate now. He then proceeded to describe all the reasons why we should cross the VOR at 12000', that this is what he wanted us to do, that this would normally be a traffic conflict but today it isn't a problem, but could have been. When we again stated he had cleared us direct, he responded, ' at pilots discretion' cleared direct, which is the first time we had heard him use that term. I believe poor communication led to this problem. First, I don't believe the controller used standard phraseology when giving the initial instructions, but rather some local 'shorthand' clearance. Next, when we didn't understand those instructions, our request for clarification didn't sound like a question as much as it did a clearance readback. When we didn't get any additional information, finally we assumed what he meant instead of asking again, clearly what it was he wanted us to do. In the final analysis had the controller used standard phraseology and/or taken the time to explain his instructions, as he did after there was a problem, this situation could have been completely avoided. We on the other hand should have been clear in or questioning the instructions and not have assumed what he wanted when we didn't get any answers.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ALT CROSSING RESTRICTION. PLTDEV.

Narrative: ACR X HAD JUST DEPARTED SAN JOSE ARPT RWY 30L AND WERE FLYING THE LOUPE-SEVEN DEP SID IN A R TURN TO 120 DEG, PASSING ABOUT 4000' WHEN THE DEP CTLR STATED I BELIEVE, 'C/S CLRED DIRECT THE SJC VOR TO ONE-TWO THOUSAND, CLB AND MAINTAIN FLT LEVEL TWO THREE ZERO.' I WAS UNSURE IF HE WANTED US TO CONTINUE OUR TURN DIRECT TO VORTAC OR CROSS THE VORTAC AT 12000' AS WE COULD NOT AT THIS POINT MAKE THAT ALT OVER THE VORTAC IF WE PROCEEDED DIRECT. I ASKED THE CAPT TO CLARIFY IF THE CTLR REALLY WANTED US TO PROCEED DIRECT AT ON-TWO-THOUSAND, CLB AND MAINTAIN FL230.' RESPONSE, 'ALL CORRECT.' WE ASSUMED THIS TO MEAN TURN DIRECT THE VOR NOW, CROSS THE VOR AT OR BELOW 12000' THEN CLRED TO FL230. WHILE CONTINUING OUR TURN FROM 120 DEGS DIRECT TO THE VOR, PASSING APPROX 9500' DEP CTL ASKED IF WE WERE GOING TO CLB ANY FASTER, WE STATED WE WERE DOING OUR BEST RATE NOW. HE THEN PROCEEDED TO DESCRIBE ALL THE REASONS WHY WE SHOULD CROSS THE VOR AT 12000', THAT THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED US TO DO, THAT THIS WOULD NORMALLY BE A TFC CONFLICT BUT TODAY IT ISN'T A PROB, BUT COULD HAVE BEEN. WHEN WE AGAIN STATED HE HAD CLRED US DIRECT, HE RESPONDED, ' AT PLTS DISCRETION' CLRED DIRECT, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD HEARD HIM USE THAT TERM. I BELIEVE POOR COM LED TO THIS PROB. FIRST, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CTLR USED STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY WHEN GIVING THE INITIAL INSTRUCTIONS, BUT RATHER SOME LCL 'SHORTHAND' CLRNC. NEXT, WHEN WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THOSE INSTRUCTIONS, OUR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION DIDN'T SOUND LIKE A QUESTION AS MUCH AS IT DID A CLRNC READBACK. WHEN WE DIDN'T GET ANY ADDITIONAL INFO, FINALLY WE ASSUMED WHAT HE MEANT INSTEAD OF ASKING AGAIN, CLRLY WHAT IT WAS HE WANTED US TO DO. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS HAD THE CTLR USED STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY AND/OR TAKEN THE TIME TO EXPLAIN HIS INSTRUCTIONS, AS HE DID AFTER THERE WAS A PROB, THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY AVOIDED. WE ON THE OTHER HAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLR IN OR QUESTIONING THE INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT HAVE ASSUMED WHAT HE WANTED WHEN WE DIDN'T GET ANY ANSWERS.

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.