Narrative:

Flight from las clearance received was 'BOACH4.hec.LYNXX8. The boach four (RNAV) departure route description narrative states 'take-off runway 1L/right: climb heading 010 degrees to 2;681 ft; then left turn direct bessy; then on track 186 degrees to cross witla at or below 10;000(ATC)/7;900; then on track 187 degrees to jebbb; then on track 147 degrees to cross boach at or above 13;000. Thence via (transition) maintain FL190; expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure.' the departure was entered into the FMS with runway 1L as the departure runway and FL190 in the altitude alerter. During departure briefing the captain questioned as to whether the 'cross witla at or below 10;000(ATC)/7;900' meant if ATC requested it by giving us a maintain altitude of 10;000 with our clearance; which it did not. It was decided to cross witla below 10;000 to be on the safe side; but the altitude alerter was not reset from FL190 to 10;000 to be sure to alert us of the lower altitude. During takeoff and initial climb almost immediately experienced wind shear as described on the ATIS along with moderate turbulence and chop; and increased pitch to climb faster while maintaining less than 230 KTS; the speed which is on the depicted portion of the departure but not in the written route description. The aircraft began climbing in excess of 4;000 FPM while turning toward witla; and ATC called to notify us we had exceeded the 10;000 ft altitude and directed us to return to 10;000 ft. The captain immediately stopped the climb and then ATC then told us not to worry about returning to 10;000 but continue climbing and turn I believe 20 degrees off the departure which we immediately complied with. No traffic alert was observed or received by our on board equipment. ATC then advised we had entered la center's airspace that las vegas departure did not own; and therefore we were given a phone number for la center to call; which we did. We were told a report was going to be filed on their part for our entering la center's airspace during the departure procedure. Identification: ATC advised we were exceeding the altitude described on the procedure. Cause: lack of training using RNAV climbs during a departure procedure; particularly one with a maximum/minimum altitude listed at any way point during a continued climb. The captain was somewhat unsure whether the term (ATC) on the description 10;000(ATC)/7;900 was a clearance to be issued separately by ATC or not to require compliance. Even though we intended to comply with it anyway; the altitude alerter was not reset to 10;000; and the wind shear/moderate turbulence and chop was distracting enough for not remembering to try to thread through the airspace over this intersection at the prescribed altitude while maintaining the slower than normal speed. Response: immediately leveled off and began a descent until being told to continue the climb and turn to a heading. Suggestions: I also have done other RNAV climb procedures; but they also listed a clearance delivery 'maintain' altitude that coincided with the lowest 'maximum' altitude listed on the departure. For instance in the above clearance out of las; if we were told to maintain 10;000 ft initially; our altitude alerter would have been certainly set to 10;000 instead of the 'maintain FL190' as listed on the written departure route description. Even if the las clearance delivery had added to his original clearance 'BOACH4.hec.LYNXX8 complies with the 10;000 ft maximum altitude restriction at witla'; I believe this would not have happened. An additional factor was the distraction caused by the windshear and turbulence encountered during the departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Aircraft on the BOACH4 SID from LAS was notified by ATC that they had exceeded a mandatory crossing altitude; the reporter listed several contributing factors including the conventional vs. ATC crossing altitude interpretations.

Narrative: Flight from LAS clearance received was 'BOACH4.HEC.LYNXX8. The BOACH FOUR (RNAV) departure route description narrative states 'Take-off Runway 1L/R: Climb heading 010 degrees to 2;681 FT; then left turn direct BESSY; then on track 186 degrees to cross WITLA at or below 10;000(ATC)/7;900; then on track 187 degrees to JEBBB; then on track 147 degrees to cross BOACH at or above 13;000. Thence via (transition) maintain FL190; expect filed altitude 10 minutes after departure.' The departure was entered into the FMS with Runway 1L as the departure runway and FL190 in the altitude alerter. During departure briefing the Captain questioned as to whether the 'cross WITLA at or below 10;000(ATC)/7;900' meant if ATC requested it by giving us a maintain altitude of 10;000 with our clearance; which it did not. It was decided to cross WITLA below 10;000 to be on the safe side; but the altitude alerter was not reset from FL190 to 10;000 to be sure to alert us of the lower altitude. During takeoff and initial climb almost immediately experienced wind shear as described on the ATIS along with moderate turbulence and chop; and increased pitch to climb faster while maintaining less than 230 KTS; the speed which is on the depicted portion of the departure but not in the written route description. The aircraft began climbing in excess of 4;000 FPM while turning toward WITLA; and ATC called to notify us we had exceeded the 10;000 FT altitude and directed us to return to 10;000 FT. The Captain immediately stopped the climb and then ATC then told us not to worry about returning to 10;000 but continue climbing and turn I believe 20 degrees off the departure which we immediately complied with. No Traffic Alert was observed or received by our on board equipment. ATC then advised we had entered LA Center's airspace that Las Vegas Departure did not own; and therefore we were given a phone number for LA Center to call; which we did. We were told a report was going to be filed on their part for our entering LA Center's airspace during the departure procedure. Identification: ATC advised we were exceeding the altitude described on the procedure. Cause: lack of training using RNAV climbs during a departure procedure; particularly one with a Maximum/Minimum altitude listed at any way point during a continued climb. The Captain was somewhat unsure whether the term (ATC) on the description 10;000(ATC)/7;900 was a clearance to be issued separately by ATC or not to require compliance. Even though we intended to comply with it anyway; the altitude alerter was not reset to 10;000; and the wind shear/moderate turbulence and chop was distracting enough for not remembering to try to thread through the airspace over this intersection at the prescribed altitude while maintaining the slower than normal speed. Response: Immediately leveled off and began a descent until being told to continue the climb and turn to a heading. Suggestions: I also have done other RNAV climb procedures; but they also listed a clearance delivery 'maintain' altitude that coincided with the lowest 'maximum' altitude listed on the departure. For instance in the above clearance out of LAS; if we were told to Maintain 10;000 FT initially; our altitude alerter would have been certainly set to 10;000 instead of the 'maintain FL190' as listed on the written departure route description. Even if the LAS Clearance Delivery had added to his original clearance 'BOACH4.HEC.LYNXX8 complies with the 10;000 FT maximum altitude restriction at WITLA'; I believe this would not have happened. An additional factor was the distraction caused by the windshear and turbulence encountered during the departure.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.