Air carrier climbs through assigned altitude.

Attributes
ACN	451360
Time
Date	199910
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : smf.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 6000 msl bound upper : 6320
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mcc.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 119
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mcc.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : multi engine
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 3300 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	451360
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : overshoot non adherence : clearance
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : returned to assigned altitude
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was the PF (the first officer). We had done several legs out of sacramento already that day and are usually assigned 9000 ft. Because of MD80 traffic above us, we were assigned 6000 ft instead upon departure with sacramento approach. We both acknowledged the altitude and saw the traffic in question above us and on the TCASII. We did our standard altitude calls of 1000 ft and 100 ft to go. We were in the midst of discussing the fact that the traffic we visually saw seemed to be farther away than what the TCASII was saying, and we were trying to confirm with each other that the traffic we saw was in fact the traffic the controller was trying to keep us away from. We confirmed that it was the traffic, and I looked down to discover that I had gone (climbed) through the assigned altitude of 6000 ft by 320 ft. I quickly descended back to 6000 ft, but by that time the controller gave us 9000 ft and we climbed to that. This happened on the 9TH leg of a 10 leg day where we incur a lot of redundancy with trips. The points which contributed to this event occurring I believe were: 1) minor pilot fatigue. 2) redundancy and familiarity. 3) distraction and emphasis on traffic.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR CLBS THROUGH ASSIGNED ALT.

Narrative: I WAS THE PF (THE FO). WE HAD DONE SEVERAL LEGS OUT OF SACRAMENTO ALREADY THAT DAY AND ARE USUALLY ASSIGNED 9000 FT. BECAUSE OF MD80 TFC ABOVE US, WE WERE ASSIGNED 6000 FT INSTEAD UPON DEP WITH SACRAMENTO APCH. WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGED THE ALT AND SAW THE TFC IN QUESTION ABOVE US AND ON THE TCASII. WE DID OUR STANDARD ALT CALLS OF 1000 FT AND 100 FT TO GO. WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT THE TFC WE VISUALLY SAW SEEMED TO BE FARTHER AWAY THAN WHAT THE TCASII WAS SAYING, AND WE WERE TRYING TO CONFIRM WITH EACH OTHER THAT THE TFC WE SAW WAS IN FACT THE TFC THE CTLR WAS TRYING TO KEEP US AWAY FROM. WE CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS THE TFC, AND I LOOKED DOWN TO DISCOVER THAT I HAD GONE (CLBED) THROUGH THE ASSIGNED ALT OF 6000 FT BY 320 FT. I QUICKLY DSNDED BACK TO 6000 FT, BUT BY THAT TIME THE CTLR GAVE US 9000 FT AND WE CLBED TO THAT. THIS HAPPENED ON THE 9TH LEG OF A 10 LEG DAY WHERE WE INCUR A LOT OF REDUNDANCY WITH TRIPS. THE POINTS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THIS EVENT OCCURRING I BELIEVE WERE: 1) MINOR PLT FATIGUE. 2) REDUNDANCY AND FAMILIARITY. 3) DISTR AND EMPHASIS ON TFC.

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.