Narrative:

Clearance by sjc clearance delivery 'cleared to denver airport, loupe 8 departure, linden transition, J84 mina as filed. Climb to and maintain 12000 ft expect FL350 in 10 mins.' departure frequency 121.3, squawk XXXX, maintain 250 KTS until advised. The other pilot copied down and read back the clearance while I was assisting the passengers. Once they were aboard and secure in their seats we proceeded with checklists, started engines and taxied to runway 30L per instructions from sjc tower. I set up the cockpit for the 'loupe 8' standard instrument departure. Having flown the departure 2 days prior, both first officer and I were familiar with the departures nuances. I set 5000 ft in the altitude select since it was to be the first restriction we would face. At XX38Z ksjc tower cleared us for takeoff. Just prior to brake release first officer queried me concerning the 5000 ft selected altitude; he had understood that we were cleared to 12000 ft per the ATC clearance that had been issued. We elected to find out from bay departure concerning this question. I contacted bay departure shortly after takeoff (I believe passing roughly 1800 ft MSL). I still had 5000 ft set in the altitude function of the flight director system. I stated that we were climbing through 1800 ft for 12000 ft. Bay departure simply acknowledged my radio call. We had elected to keep the flaps at 20 degrees and airspeed at 190 KTS to make good the 1.8 NM and 4.0 NM turning restriction. Since my call for the climb to 12000 ft did not elicit anything beyond an acknowledgement from the controller, both first officer and I assumed that a normal climb to 12000 ft would be permissible. We thus continued a rather steep climb profile knowing that from our previous experience that bay departure would require us to cross the sjc VOR at 12000 ft. While passing an altitude of roughly 6000 ft MSL and approximately the 035 degree radial of the sjc VOR the controller asked us for our altitude. I stated we were passing 6000 ft for 12000 ft. He quickly informed us that due to the flow of traffic into the bay area airports that the 5000 ft restricion should have been met, but it 'wouldn't be a problem today but familiarize yourselves with the loupe 8 departure in the future.' I then acknowledged the controller's call. Shortly thereafter the controller requested that I telephone bay departure since there seemed to be an inordinately large number of incidents concerning the departure procedure. I copied the telephone number from the controller. Upon our arrival at den I called the supervisor on duty. I detailed the chain of events as I have attempted to highlight above, mentioning that first officer and I had flown the departure previously with no problems. He acknowledged also that there had been numerous problems concerning the SID but he would still have to submit a report of pilot deviations through FAA channels. I concluded my conversation with him by stating I fully understood the necessity for such. Recommendations: I recommend clrer ATC clrncs where there may be doubts; that both pilots and controllers alike ensure, by way of communication, that each fully comprehends what the other is doing and why. Both interpreted the clearance we had received and the acknowledgement from the controller as negating the restriction. Stronger measures on my part certainly would have precluded this situation, but on the other side of the ledger the controller should have sensed something when he heard my call for the climb to 12000 ft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CGA DEP CLBS ABOVE SID XING RESTRICTION. RPTR CLAIMS MISUNDERSTANDING WITH SID.

Narrative: CLRNC BY SJC CLRNC DELIVERY 'CLRED TO DENVER ARPT, LOUPE 8 DEP, LINDEN TRANSITION, J84 MINA AS FILED. CLB TO AND MAINTAIN 12000 FT EXPECT FL350 IN 10 MINS.' DEP FREQ 121.3, SQUAWK XXXX, MAINTAIN 250 KTS UNTIL ADVISED. THE OTHER PLT COPIED DOWN AND READ BACK THE CLRNC WHILE I WAS ASSISTING THE PAXS. ONCE THEY WERE ABOARD AND SECURE IN THEIR SEATS WE PROCEEDED WITH CHKLISTS, STARTED ENGS AND TAXIED TO RWY 30L PER INSTRUCTIONS FROM SJC TWR. I SET UP THE COCKPIT FOR THE 'LOUPE 8' STANDARD INST DEP. HAVING FLOWN THE DEP 2 DAYS PRIOR, BOTH FO AND I WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE DEPS NUANCES. I SET 5000 FT IN THE ALT SELECT SINCE IT WAS TO BE THE FIRST RESTRICTION WE WOULD FACE. AT XX38Z KSJC TWR CLRED US FOR TKOF. JUST PRIOR TO BRAKE RELEASE FO QUERIED ME CONCERNING THE 5000 FT SELECTED ALT; HE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE CLRED TO 12000 FT PER THE ATC CLRNC THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED. WE ELECTED TO FIND OUT FROM BAY DEP CONCERNING THIS QUESTION. I CONTACTED BAY DEP SHORTLY AFTER TKOF (I BELIEVE PASSING ROUGHLY 1800 FT MSL). I STILL HAD 5000 FT SET IN THE ALT FUNCTION OF THE FLT DIRECTOR SYS. I STATED THAT WE WERE CLBING THROUGH 1800 FT FOR 12000 FT. BAY DEP SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGED MY RADIO CALL. WE HAD ELECTED TO KEEP THE FLAPS AT 20 DEGS AND AIRSPD AT 190 KTS TO MAKE GOOD THE 1.8 NM AND 4.0 NM TURNING RESTRICTION. SINCE MY CALL FOR THE CLB TO 12000 FT DID NOT ELICIT ANYTHING BEYOND AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE CTLR, BOTH FO AND I ASSUMED THAT A NORMAL CLB TO 12000 FT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. WE THUS CONTINUED A RATHER STEEP CLB PROFILE KNOWING THAT FROM OUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE THAT BAY DEP WOULD REQUIRE US TO CROSS THE SJC VOR AT 12000 FT. WHILE PASSING AN ALT OF ROUGHLY 6000 FT MSL AND APPROX THE 035 DEG RADIAL OF THE SJC VOR THE CTLR ASKED US FOR OUR ALT. I STATED WE WERE PASSING 6000 FT FOR 12000 FT. HE QUICKLY INFORMED US THAT DUE TO THE FLOW OF TFC INTO THE BAY AREA ARPTS THAT THE 5000 FT RESTRICION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MET, BUT IT 'WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM TODAY BUT FAMILIARIZE YOURSELVES WITH THE LOUPE 8 DEP IN THE FUTURE.' I THEN ACKNOWLEDGED THE CTLR'S CALL. SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE CTLR REQUESTED THAT I TELEPHONE BAY DEP SINCE THERE SEEMED TO BE AN INORDINATELY LARGE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS CONCERNING THE DEP PROC. I COPIED THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM THE CTLR. UPON OUR ARR AT DEN I CALLED THE SUPVR ON DUTY. I DETAILED THE CHAIN OF EVENTS AS I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO HIGHLIGHT ABOVE, MENTIONING THAT FO AND I HAD FLOWN THE DEP PREVIOUSLY WITH NO PROBLEMS. HE ACKNOWLEDGED ALSO THAT THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE SID BUT HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT A RPT OF PLT DEVS THROUGH FAA CHANNELS. I CONCLUDED MY CONVERSATION WITH HIM BY STATING I FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH. RECOMMENDATIONS: I RECOMMEND CLRER ATC CLRNCS WHERE THERE MAY BE DOUBTS; THAT BOTH PLTS AND CTLRS ALIKE ENSURE, BY WAY OF COM, THAT EACH FULLY COMPREHENDS WHAT THE OTHER IS DOING AND WHY. BOTH INTERPRETED THE CLRNC WE HAD RECEIVED AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE CTLR AS NEGATING THE RESTRICTION. STRONGER MEASURES ON MY PART CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED THIS SITUATION, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE SENSED SOMETHING WHEN HE HEARD MY CALL FOR THE CLB TO 12000 FT.

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.