Narrative:

Departed las for oak. Clearance was 'turn left heading 315 degrees, climb and maintain 7000 ft, radar vectors the shead departure.' departed runway 1R and turned left to heading 315 degrees before being changed to departure frequency by the tower. Departure control issued clearance 'climb and maintain FL190.' first officer read back specifically 'climb unrestr, remain FL190.' subsequent to that we were given a heading of 190 degrees, radar vectors to remainder of the shead departure. Passing 12200 ft in the climb to FL190, we were given 'proceed direct tarrk, comply with restrs.' since I was already above the restr at tarrk, I continued my climb to FL190 and complied with both of the remaining restrs, which were both 'at or above' specific altitudes. I have no doubt whatsoever my clearance was to FL190 and there were no restrs associated with that climb clearance. My concern here is the contradiction subsequently given voice by the controller when he gave me a clearance to an intersection with an altitude restr below that through which I was climbing at that time. It was disconcerting, to say the least. In my opinion, las is an accident waiting to happen with their current system of RNAV stars and sids. There are entirely too many sids and stars with far too many altitudes depicted, and for which there are at least as many ways to be cleared as there are controllers in that TRACON. Seldom do I enter or leave las without feeling I have put my license on the line at some point, trying to ascertain what the specific controller wanted for the specific procedure being used. I have been given 'descend via some STAR,' 'descend via, except maintain (some non standard altitude),' 'descend via, except turn to heading XXX and maintain altitude xx after point Y,' I have received 'climb via XXX SID, comply with all restrs (which are on some sids both 'at or below' some altitude and 'at' some other altitude),' 'climb unrestr to flxxx' and as happened today, 'climb to FL190,' where the controller thought he gave me a restr to climb. There are entirely too many convoluted stars and sids for las. The procedures are poorly charted and the charts themselves lack safety data. Every VOR should have a frequency associated with it, as on every other aviation chart we use. There is no reason for the VOR's to be unlabeled as to frequency. We use raw data in other aircraft to back up the RNAV, and what frequencys should we use? Those we remember for the VOR's, or the frequencys off another set of charts that we have to look up in a congested, convoluted environment? In my opinion, the sids and stars need to be halved in number and simplified by a factor of 5. Every controller needs to use standard phraseology for every clearance and either use the mandatory altitudes associated with each procedure or else print no altitudes on any procedure so there is no question what the clearance was supposed to be. Supplemental information from acn 602221: ATC made no mention of altitude restr at tarrk. I don't believe this to be a deviation from the shead 1 since we were never on the SID to begin with and had had 2 vectors after takeoff and had been cleared to an altitude above all the restrs.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF B737-300 EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION OF RNAV PROCS AT LAS.

Narrative: DEPARTED LAS FOR OAK. CLRNC WAS 'TURN L HEADING 315 DEGS, CLB AND MAINTAIN 7000 FT, RADAR VECTORS THE SHEAD DEP.' DEPARTED RWY 1R AND TURNED L TO HEADING 315 DEGS BEFORE BEING CHANGED TO DEP FREQ BY THE TWR. DEP CTL ISSUED CLRNC 'CLB AND MAINTAIN FL190.' FO READ BACK SPECIFICALLY 'CLB UNRESTR, REMAIN FL190.' SUBSEQUENT TO THAT WE WERE GIVEN A HEADING OF 190 DEGS, RADAR VECTORS TO REMAINDER OF THE SHEAD DEP. PASSING 12200 FT IN THE CLB TO FL190, WE WERE GIVEN 'PROCEED DIRECT TARRK, COMPLY WITH RESTRS.' SINCE I WAS ALREADY ABOVE THE RESTR AT TARRK, I CONTINUED MY CLB TO FL190 AND COMPLIED WITH BOTH OF THE REMAINING RESTRS, WHICH WERE BOTH 'AT OR ABOVE' SPECIFIC ALTS. I HAVE NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER MY CLRNC WAS TO FL190 AND THERE WERE NO RESTRS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CLB CLRNC. MY CONCERN HERE IS THE CONTRADICTION SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN VOICE BY THE CTLR WHEN HE GAVE ME A CLRNC TO AN INTXN WITH AN ALT RESTR BELOW THAT THROUGH WHICH I WAS CLBING AT THAT TIME. IT WAS DISCONCERTING, TO SAY THE LEAST. IN MY OPINION, LAS IS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN WITH THEIR CURRENT SYS OF RNAV STARS AND SIDS. THERE ARE ENTIRELY TOO MANY SIDS AND STARS WITH FAR TOO MANY ALTS DEPICTED, AND FOR WHICH THERE ARE AT LEAST AS MANY WAYS TO BE CLRED AS THERE ARE CTLRS IN THAT TRACON. SELDOM DO I ENTER OR LEAVE LAS WITHOUT FEELING I HAVE PUT MY LICENSE ON THE LINE AT SOME POINT, TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE SPECIFIC CTLR WANTED FOR THE SPECIFIC PROC BEING USED. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN 'DSND VIA SOME STAR,' 'DSND VIA, EXCEPT MAINTAIN (SOME NON STANDARD ALT),' 'DSND VIA, EXCEPT TURN TO HEADING XXX AND MAINTAIN ALT XX AFTER POINT Y,' I HAVE RECEIVED 'CLB VIA XXX SID, COMPLY WITH ALL RESTRS (WHICH ARE ON SOME SIDS BOTH 'AT OR BELOW' SOME ALT AND 'AT' SOME OTHER ALT),' 'CLB UNRESTR TO FLXXX' AND AS HAPPENED TODAY, 'CLB TO FL190,' WHERE THE CTLR THOUGHT HE GAVE ME A RESTR TO CLB. THERE ARE ENTIRELY TOO MANY CONVOLUTED STARS AND SIDS FOR LAS. THE PROCS ARE POORLY CHARTED AND THE CHARTS THEMSELVES LACK SAFETY DATA. EVERY VOR SHOULD HAVE A FREQ ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AS ON EVERY OTHER AVIATION CHART WE USE. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE VOR'S TO BE UNLABELED AS TO FREQ. WE USE RAW DATA IN OTHER ACFT TO BACK UP THE RNAV, AND WHAT FREQS SHOULD WE USE? THOSE WE REMEMBER FOR THE VOR'S, OR THE FREQS OFF ANOTHER SET OF CHARTS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK UP IN A CONGESTED, CONVOLUTED ENVIRONMENT? IN MY OPINION, THE SIDS AND STARS NEED TO BE HALVED IN NUMBER AND SIMPLIFIED BY A FACTOR OF 5. EVERY CTLR NEEDS TO USE STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY FOR EVERY CLRNC AND EITHER USE THE MANDATORY ALTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH PROC OR ELSE PRINT NO ALTS ON ANY PROC SO THERE IS NO QUESTION WHAT THE CLRNC WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 602221: ATC MADE NO MENTION OF ALT RESTR AT TARRK. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS TO BE A DEV FROM THE SHEAD 1 SINCE WE WERE NEVER ON THE SID TO BEGIN WITH AND HAD HAD 2 VECTORS AFTER TKOF AND HAD BEEN CLRED TO AN ALT ABOVE ALL THE RESTRS.

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.