Narrative:

On may/wed/03, departed grand junction, co, with designation denver. I am a check-airman and was in the right seat giving initial operating line experience instruction (oe) to a new captain who was in the left seat. I was the PIC, and on this particular flight, I was receiving my annual line check from yet another check-airman that was sitting in the jump seat. I was the pilot operating the controls on this flight, while the training captain in the left seat had the task of non-flying duties, including radio operation while in-flight. 3 capts, 2 of which are FAA designated company check-airmen, were in the cockpit doing things 'by the book,' being as careful and conservative as possible. Our company strongly discourages the use of 'maintaining own terrain separation VFR climbs.' instead, they encourage the use of published IFR obstacle departure procedures when no other navigation SID is issued. This is true even when the WX is good. For these reasons, while at the gate I stipulated to the grand junction ground controller upon obtaining the clearance that we would not be doing a VFR climb and would be doing the published obstacle departure procedure instead. The controller seemed a bit surprised by my choice, indicating to me that on a clear day most pilots are not as conservative as I choose to be. As we were nearing runway 11 for departure, we were told to fly the grand mesa one. This is a published SID, but a vector only SID, having no specific navigation procedure. None of us in the cockpit heard a heading assignment along with that clearance. That fact, combined with the captain telling the same controller earlier that we would need to do the obstacle departure, meant that we were still permitted to fly the desired obstacle departure. At the same time, we would utilize the other information contained in the grand mesa one SID. Our initial altitude remained at 14000 ft. All of this was briefed prior to taking the runway for departure. All 3 of us still believed that we were expected to fly the obstacle procedure. After takeoff, I followed the obstacle departure procedure. This procedure entails making a right turnout to the west toward the jnc VOR while maintaining a maximum rate of climb for terrain clearance. The non-flying captain in the left seat called denver departure control, which handles the radar around grand junction. We were asked what our heading was, which the captain replied as being 270 degrees, which is the general direction of the procedure taking us to the VOR. While climbing through 7000 ft, the controller told us to maintain 8000 ft, and started asking why we weren't on the assigned 130 degree heading and what we were doing. By the time the controller was answered that we were flying the obstacle procedure and the new altitude of 8000 ft was reset, the airplane had already exceeded 8000 ft by about 600 ft. The maximum performance climb in our lightly loaded 50 passenger regional jet was yielding at least 3000 FPM. It took an understandable amount of time to safely and comfortably get all of that momentum turned around and descend back to 8000 ft. The controller stated that there was conflicting traffic at 12 O'clock position. The TCASII showed 1 target 3000 ft above and 7 mi away, nothing urgent enough to endanger the airplane with overly aggressive maneuvering. There was no RA or TA on TCASII. At this point the controller stated that I must call to discuss possible deviation. My ATC telephone conversation was on may/thu/03, with denver TRACON quality assurance. He indicated to me that upon reviewing the tapes, the transcript proved that we were indeed told to fly a 130 degree heading. However, I did not read back the heading, I only acknowledged receipt of grand mesa one and that we would need some time to review and program the FMS if needed. All 3 of us that were in the cockpit still do not recall hearing a heading assignment. I always read back heading assignments, so it makes perfect sense to me that the transcript did not have my specific readback of the heading, because I didn't hear it. In hindsight, I should have simply reconfirmed the obstacle departure as still valid, and no heading assignment. Additionally, the controller should have been told that a leveloff at 8000 ft might be tight and that I would do the besti could.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 FLT CREW DEP FROM GJT EXPERIENCED ALTDEV.

Narrative: ON MAY/WED/03, DEPARTED GRAND JUNCTION, CO, WITH DESIGNATION DENVER. I AM A CHK-AIRMAN AND WAS IN THE R SEAT GIVING INITIAL OPERATING LINE EXPERIENCE INSTRUCTION (OE) TO A NEW CAPT WHO WAS IN THE L SEAT. I WAS THE PIC, AND ON THIS PARTICULAR FLT, I WAS RECEIVING MY ANNUAL LINE CHK FROM YET ANOTHER CHK-AIRMAN THAT WAS SITTING IN THE JUMP SEAT. I WAS THE PLT OPERATING THE CTLS ON THIS FLT, WHILE THE TRAINING CAPT IN THE L SEAT HAD THE TASK OF NON-FLYING DUTIES, INCLUDING RADIO OP WHILE INFLT. 3 CAPTS, 2 OF WHICH ARE FAA DESIGNATED COMPANY CHK-AIRMEN, WERE IN THE COCKPIT DOING THINGS 'BY THE BOOK,' BEING AS CAREFUL AND CONSERVATIVE AS POSSIBLE. OUR COMPANY STRONGLY DISCOURAGES THE USE OF 'MAINTAINING OWN TERRAIN SEPARATION VFR CLBS.' INSTEAD, THEY ENCOURAGE THE USE OF PUBLISHED IFR OBSTACLE DEP PROCS WHEN NO OTHER NAV SID IS ISSUED. THIS IS TRUE EVEN WHEN THE WX IS GOOD. FOR THESE REASONS, WHILE AT THE GATE I STIPULATED TO THE GRAND JUNCTION GND CTLR UPON OBTAINING THE CLRNC THAT WE WOULD NOT BE DOING A VFR CLB AND WOULD BE DOING THE PUBLISHED OBSTACLE DEP PROC INSTEAD. THE CTLR SEEMED A BIT SURPRISED BY MY CHOICE, INDICATING TO ME THAT ON A CLR DAY MOST PLTS ARE NOT AS CONSERVATIVE AS I CHOOSE TO BE. AS WE WERE NEARING RWY 11 FOR DEP, WE WERE TOLD TO FLY THE GRAND MESA ONE. THIS IS A PUBLISHED SID, BUT A VECTOR ONLY SID, HAVING NO SPECIFIC NAV PROC. NONE OF US IN THE COCKPIT HEARD A HEADING ASSIGNMENT ALONG WITH THAT CLRNC. THAT FACT, COMBINED WITH THE CAPT TELLING THE SAME CTLR EARLIER THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO THE OBSTACLE DEP, MEANT THAT WE WERE STILL PERMITTED TO FLY THE DESIRED OBSTACLE DEP. AT THE SAME TIME, WE WOULD UTILIZE THE OTHER INFO CONTAINED IN THE GRAND MESA ONE SID. OUR INITIAL ALT REMAINED AT 14000 FT. ALL OF THIS WAS BRIEFED PRIOR TO TAKING THE RWY FOR DEP. ALL 3 OF US STILL BELIEVED THAT WE WERE EXPECTED TO FLY THE OBSTACLE PROC. AFTER TKOF, I FOLLOWED THE OBSTACLE DEP PROC. THIS PROC ENTAILS MAKING A R TURNOUT TO THE W TOWARD THE JNC VOR WHILE MAINTAINING A MAX RATE OF CLB FOR TERRAIN CLRNC. THE NON-FLYING CAPT IN THE L SEAT CALLED DENVER DEP CTL, WHICH HANDLES THE RADAR AROUND GRAND JUNCTION. WE WERE ASKED WHAT OUR HEADING WAS, WHICH THE CAPT REPLIED AS BEING 270 DEGS, WHICH IS THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE PROC TAKING US TO THE VOR. WHILE CLBING THROUGH 7000 FT, THE CTLR TOLD US TO MAINTAIN 8000 FT, AND STARTED ASKING WHY WE WEREN'T ON THE ASSIGNED 130 DEG HDG AND WHAT WE WERE DOING. BY THE TIME THE CTLR WAS ANSWERED THAT WE WERE FLYING THE OBSTACLE PROC AND THE NEW ALT OF 8000 FT WAS RESET, THE AIRPLANE HAD ALREADY EXCEEDED 8000 FT BY ABOUT 600 FT. THE MAX PERFORMANCE CLB IN OUR LIGHTLY LOADED 50 PAX REGIONAL JET WAS YIELDING AT LEAST 3000 FPM. IT TOOK AN UNDERSTANDABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO SAFELY AND COMFORTABLY GET ALL OF THAT MOMENTUM TURNED AROUND AND DSND BACK TO 8000 FT. THE CTLR STATED THAT THERE WAS CONFLICTING TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK POS. THE TCASII SHOWED 1 TARGET 3000 FT ABOVE AND 7 MI AWAY, NOTHING URGENT ENOUGH TO ENDANGER THE AIRPLANE WITH OVERLY AGGRESSIVE MANEUVERING. THERE WAS NO RA OR TA ON TCASII. AT THIS POINT THE CTLR STATED THAT I MUST CALL TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE DEV. MY ATC TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WAS ON MAY/THU/03, WITH DENVER TRACON QUALITY ASSURANCE. HE INDICATED TO ME THAT UPON REVIEWING THE TAPES, THE TRANSCRIPT PROVED THAT WE WERE INDEED TOLD TO FLY A 130 DEG HDG. HOWEVER, I DID NOT READ BACK THE HEADING, I ONLY ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF GRAND MESA ONE AND THAT WE WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO REVIEW AND PROGRAM THE FMS IF NEEDED. ALL 3 OF US THAT WERE IN THE COCKPIT STILL DO NOT RECALL HEARING A HEADING ASSIGNMENT. I ALWAYS READ BACK HEADING ASSIGNMENTS, SO IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME THAT THE TRANSCRIPT DID NOT HAVE MY SPECIFIC READBACK OF THE HEADING, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR IT. IN HINDSIGHT, I SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY RECONFIRMED THE OBSTACLE DEP AS STILL VALID, AND NO HEADING ASSIGNMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT A LEVELOFF AT 8000 FT MIGHT BE TIGHT AND THAT I WOULD DO THE BESTI COULD.

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.