Narrative:

After takeoff to the north from dallas love, we were climbed in steps through 17000 ft with vectors being given from runway heading through left turns to take us directly over dfw airport on the way toward intercepting the joe poole departure/college station transition. Sometime during our turn to the south for intercept, we were given a climb to FL230 and hadned off to the controller who created the problem. It was a cool, clearing night and the aircraft was light, so we were climbing at approximately 4000 FPM at an airspeed of around 340 KTS. As the altimeter was passing FL217, the controller instructed us to level at FL220. I replied, 'we will come back down to FL220.' at the same time the PF pushed the nose over rapidly in an attempt to comply with the instructions. However, it is not possible to stop a 4000 FPM climb in 300 ft, hence my above response. Shortly thereafter, the controller asked if we were level at FL220, and I responded, maybe too curtly, 'negative, I told you we would have to come back to FL220.' at the time, we were showing FL222 and descending to comply. We were instructed to slow to 280 KTS, and then given an immediate right turn of 40 degrees for traffic. We complied. At about the same time, I called level at FL220, and another controller cleared us direct to college station followed almost immediately, it seemed, we were issued a climb to FL230 and were handed off to another controller. We had been watching traffic ahead and above, but it is difficult to estimate the exact distance or altitude, especially at night. Since we had been issued the clearance to FL230, we had no reason to question his altitude, and his distance did not 'feel' closer than normal. It simply appeared that the controller failed to see the closure until aggressive corrections were required, and the instructions could not be complied with as quickly as the controller desired. Another possible area of confusion could be that all aircraft, and even all jet aircraft do not perform alike. Climb speeds and rates vary greatly, and some of the newer controllers may not notice the differences as they watch the relative motion on their scopes. That could have been a contributing factor to the problem we encountered.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: G2 CPR ACFT IN HIGH RATE OF CLB WAS GIVEN A LEVELOFF ALT WITHIN 300 FT WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR FLC TO MAKE WITHOUT ALT OVERSHOT. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER THEY WERE CLRED TO SLOW AND TURN 40 DEGS FOR TFC.

Narrative: AFTER TKOF TO THE N FROM DALLAS LOVE, WE WERE CLBED IN STEPS THROUGH 17000 FT WITH VECTORS BEING GIVEN FROM RWY HEADING THROUGH L TURNS TO TAKE US DIRECTLY OVER DFW ARPT ON THE WAY TOWARD INTERCEPTING THE JOE POOLE DEP/COLLEGE STATION TRANSITION. SOMETIME DURING OUR TURN TO THE S FOR INTERCEPT, WE WERE GIVEN A CLB TO FL230 AND HADNED OFF TO THE CTLR WHO CREATED THE PROB. IT WAS A COOL, CLEARING NIGHT AND THE ACFT WAS LIGHT, SO WE WERE CLBING AT APPROX 4000 FPM AT AN AIRSPD OF AROUND 340 KTS. AS THE ALTIMETER WAS PASSING FL217, THE CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO LEVEL AT FL220. I REPLIED, 'WE WILL COME BACK DOWN TO FL220.' AT THE SAME TIME THE PF PUSHED THE NOSE OVER RAPIDLY IN AN ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP A 4000 FPM CLB IN 300 FT, HENCE MY ABOVE RESPONSE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE LEVEL AT FL220, AND I RESPONDED, MAYBE TOO CURTLY, 'NEGATIVE, I TOLD YOU WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO FL220.' AT THE TIME, WE WERE SHOWING FL222 AND DSNDING TO COMPLY. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO SLOW TO 280 KTS, AND THEN GIVEN AN IMMEDIATE R TURN OF 40 DEGS FOR TFC. WE COMPLIED. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, I CALLED LEVEL AT FL220, AND ANOTHER CTLR CLRED US DIRECT TO COLLEGE STATION FOLLOWED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, IT SEEMED, WE WERE ISSUED A CLB TO FL230 AND WERE HANDED OFF TO ANOTHER CTLR. WE HAD BEEN WATCHING TFC AHEAD AND ABOVE, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE THE EXACT DISTANCE OR ALT, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT. SINCE WE HAD BEEN ISSUED THE CLRNC TO FL230, WE HAD NO REASON TO QUESTION HIS ALT, AND HIS DISTANCE DID NOT 'FEEL' CLOSER THAN NORMAL. IT SIMPLY APPEARED THAT THE CTLR FAILED TO SEE THE CLOSURE UNTIL AGGRESSIVE CORRECTIONS WERE REQUIRED, AND THE INSTRUCTIONS COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH AS QUICKLY AS THE CTLR DESIRED. ANOTHER POSSIBLE AREA OF CONFUSION COULD BE THAT ALL ACFT, AND EVEN ALL JET ACFT DO NOT PERFORM ALIKE. CLB SPDS AND RATES VARY GREATLY, AND SOME OF THE NEWER CTLRS MAY NOT NOTICE THE DIFFERENCES AS THEY WATCH THE RELATIVE MOTION ON THEIR SCOPES. THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE PROB WE ENCOUNTERED.

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.