Narrative:

After a hassa 4 departure from ont was filed, I was given a pomona 4 from clearance delivery. I calculated that I would need 1400 FPM average to 14000' MSL to comply with the crossing restriction at dowst intersection and concluded that the aircraft was capable of this with proper climb out. I made a maximum thrust takeoff from runway 26R and proceeded on the depicted departure course. The climb out was on scheduled to approximately 9000' at which point I became unable to sustain a rapid enough climb to make the crossing, probably due to an unforecast inversion layer. When it became apparent that I would miss the altitude I made several calls advising ATC of the problem on what had been a clear frequency. I received no reply until I reached dowst intersection at 13100' at which ponit I was informed that I was in violation and was given a phone # to call when I landed. Upon arrival at stl I called the # and spoke with the watch supervisor who had relieved the one on duty during the incident. He stated that he had been briefed by his predecessor and that I had not been properly advised by ont ground control that there was a problem and an inversion in the area. He stated that there was no further action contemplated. As I approached the intersection I considered a 360 degree turn to gain altitude but rejected the idea due to the crowded airspace in the la basin. I judged it to be safer to maintain course and accept the 900' altitude deviation, since terrain clearance was no problem and the excellent flight visibility minimized the possibility of a midair collision. Given the instantaneous communication I received at dowst it is my strong suspicion that my calls had been received but for whatever reason ignored. While I accept my responsibility for the altitude deviation, I could have taken a 360 degree turn prior to arrival had I been able to communicate. It is my considered opinion that this departure should not be assigned to aircraft with climb performance that would preclude compliance if temperature inversions, anti-ice use or any unforecast abnormal conditions exist. If this routing is absolutely necessary, then a holding pattern for the purpose of climb should be depicted on the chart as is done several places in europe.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT UNABLE TO MAKE DOWST CROSSING RESTRICTION.

Narrative: AFTER A HASSA 4 DEP FROM ONT WAS FILED, I WAS GIVEN A POMONA 4 FROM CLRNC DELIVERY. I CALCULATED THAT I WOULD NEED 1400 FPM AVERAGE TO 14000' MSL TO COMPLY WITH THE XING RESTRICTION AT DOWST INTXN AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ACFT WAS CAPABLE OF THIS WITH PROPER CLBOUT. I MADE A MAX THRUST TKOF FROM RWY 26R AND PROCEEDED ON THE DEPICTED DEP COURSE. THE CLBOUT WAS ON SCHEDULED TO APPROX 9000' AT WHICH POINT I BECAME UNABLE TO SUSTAIN A RAPID ENOUGH CLB TO MAKE THE XING, PROBABLY DUE TO AN UNFORECAST INVERSION LAYER. WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT I WOULD MISS THE ALT I MADE SEVERAL CALLS ADVISING ATC OF THE PROB ON WHAT HAD BEEN A CLR FREQ. I RECEIVED NO REPLY UNTIL I REACHED DOWST INTXN AT 13100' AT WHICH PONIT I WAS INFORMED THAT I WAS IN VIOLATION AND WAS GIVEN A PHONE # TO CALL WHEN I LANDED. UPON ARR AT STL I CALLED THE # AND SPOKE WITH THE WATCH SUPVR WHO HAD RELIEVED THE ONE ON DUTY DURING THE INCIDENT. HE STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN BRIEFED BY HIS PREDECESSOR AND THAT I HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED BY ONT GND CTL THAT THERE WAS A PROB AND AN INVERSION IN THE AREA. HE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO FURTHER ACTION CONTEMPLATED. AS I APCHED THE INTXN I CONSIDERED A 360 DEG TURN TO GAIN ALT BUT REJECTED THE IDEA DUE TO THE CROWDED AIRSPACE IN THE LA BASIN. I JUDGED IT TO BE SAFER TO MAINTAIN COURSE AND ACCEPT THE 900' ALT DEVIATION, SINCE TERRAIN CLRNC WAS NO PROB AND THE EXCELLENT FLT VISIBILITY MINIMIZED THE POSSIBILITY OF A MIDAIR COLLISION. GIVEN THE INSTANTANEOUS COM I RECEIVED AT DOWST IT IS MY STRONG SUSPICION THAT MY CALLS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON IGNORED. WHILE I ACCEPT MY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ALT DEVIATION, I COULD HAVE TAKEN A 360 DEG TURN PRIOR TO ARR HAD I BEEN ABLE TO COMMUNICATE. IT IS MY CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS DEP SHOULD NOT BE ASSIGNED TO ACFT WITH CLB PERFORMANCE THAT WOULD PRECLUDE COMPLIANCE IF TEMP INVERSIONS, ANTI-ICE USE OR ANY UNFORECAST ABNORMAL CONDITIONS EXIST. IF THIS ROUTING IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, THEN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLB SHOULD BE DEPICTED ON THE CHART AS IS DONE SEVERAL PLACES IN EUROPE.

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.