CL601 flight crew concerned about climb clearance.

Attributes
ACN	554767
Time
Date	200207
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : djb.vortac
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 26000 msl bound upper : 24200
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Regional Jet CL65, Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other other vortac
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob.artcc
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 13891 flight time type : 6386
ASRS Report	554767
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : overshoot non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to assigned altitude
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We had just been returned to on course direct yxu (london, ontario) after being on an off-course vector for traffic due to our slow climb on our way to FL270. Controller previously asked if we could increase our climb rate and we answered that we couldn't, and that we were also at our minimum climb speed (250 KIAS). In the direct yxu clearance, ATC also stated 'no delay to FL270.' this was as we passed FL260. At FL265, our climb rate deteriorated further, to less than 500 FPM, and I notified the controller. Controller simply said we needed to be level at FL270 -- did not offer a vector or point out traffic. Then we got a TA, with head-on traffic approaching at FL260. I think we were IMC. We increased our climb rate, even though going below our company-approved minimum climb speed. We reached FL270 with the opposite direction traffic just outside the 5 mi ring on TCASII, perhaps at 5 1/2 - 6 mi, but definitely outside the 5 mi ring. For some reason, perhaps the adjustment to climb rate so close to our capture altitude, autoplt did not capture at FL270. Due to distraction of conflicting traffic, we continued above FL270, reaching maximum FL272 as we adjusted pitch to descend back to FL270, which then captured. No apparent traffic conflicts due to this overshoots, no traffic above us on TCASII. Although standard separation was not lost, it was close enough to warrant a report. I cannot understand why the controller, knowing we were a slow clber, turned us back in the direction of head-on traffic, instead of keeping us away until we had reached FL270. I cannot understand why the controller, after being notified of further degrading climb, did not offer a turn, and/or get other traffic to turn as well. We did the best we could, and let the controller know there was no better we could given him. Still, we were put in this situation. Were we to question the vector back on course? We are not the ones in the position to know the other traffic factors, so I think not. I don't now what else west could have done.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL601 FLC CONCERNED ABOUT CLB CLRNC.

Narrative: WE HAD JUST BEEN RETURNED TO ON COURSE DIRECT YXU (LONDON, ONTARIO) AFTER BEING ON AN OFF-COURSE VECTOR FOR TFC DUE TO OUR SLOW CLB ON OUR WAY TO FL270. CTLR PREVIOUSLY ASKED IF WE COULD INCREASE OUR CLB RATE AND WE ANSWERED THAT WE COULDN'T, AND THAT WE WERE ALSO AT OUR MINIMUM CLB SPD (250 KIAS). IN THE DIRECT YXU CLRNC, ATC ALSO STATED 'NO DELAY TO FL270.' THIS WAS AS WE PASSED FL260. AT FL265, OUR CLB RATE DETERIORATED FURTHER, TO LESS THAN 500 FPM, AND I NOTIFIED THE CTLR. CTLR SIMPLY SAID WE NEEDED TO BE LEVEL AT FL270 -- DID NOT OFFER A VECTOR OR POINT OUT TFC. THEN WE GOT A TA, WITH HEAD-ON TFC APCHING AT FL260. I THINK WE WERE IMC. WE INCREASED OUR CLB RATE, EVEN THOUGH GOING BELOW OUR COMPANY-APPROVED MINIMUM CLB SPD. WE REACHED FL270 WITH THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC JUST OUTSIDE THE 5 MI RING ON TCASII, PERHAPS AT 5 1/2 - 6 MI, BUT DEFINITELY OUTSIDE THE 5 MI RING. FOR SOME REASON, PERHAPS THE ADJUSTMENT TO CLB RATE SO CLOSE TO OUR CAPTURE ALT, AUTOPLT DID NOT CAPTURE AT FL270. DUE TO DISTR OF CONFLICTING TFC, WE CONTINUED ABOVE FL270, REACHING MAX FL272 AS WE ADJUSTED PITCH TO DSND BACK TO FL270, WHICH THEN CAPTURED. NO APPARENT TFC CONFLICTS DUE TO THIS OVERSHOOTS, NO TFC ABOVE US ON TCASII. ALTHOUGH STANDARD SEPARATION WAS NOT LOST, IT WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO WARRANT A RPT. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE CTLR, KNOWING WE WERE A SLOW CLBER, TURNED US BACK IN THE DIRECTION OF HEAD-ON TFC, INSTEAD OF KEEPING US AWAY UNTIL WE HAD REACHED FL270. I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE CTLR, AFTER BEING NOTIFIED OF FURTHER DEGRADING CLB, DID NOT OFFER A TURN, AND/OR GET OTHER TFC TO TURN AS WELL. WE DID THE BEST WE COULD, AND LET THE CTLR KNOW THERE WAS NO BETTER WE COULD GIVEN HIM. STILL, WE WERE PUT IN THIS SIT. WERE WE TO QUESTION THE VECTOR BACK ON COURSE? WE ARE NOT THE ONES IN THE POS TO KNOW THE OTHER TFC FACTORS, SO I THINK NOT. I DON'T NOW WHAT ELSE W COULD HAVE DONE.

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.