Narrative:

Aircraft X checked in with R09 with their altitude leaving; climbing to FL290. The pilot came back again one minute later and told R09 again that he was climbing to FL290. She amended his altitude to FL230; which is the highest altitude owned by sector 09; and the correct altitude to which this aircraft should have been climbing.FL230 is the published top altitude on the san zzooo SID; which went into effect as part of the first round of implementation for the socal metroplex project. As background; the previous poggi RNAV SID used by this sector for aircraft departing san diego; also had a published top altitude. However; on the poggi SID; the published top altitude was 150; and within sct airspace; not ZLA airspace. I mention this because I don't believe that climb via to a published top altitude is a new procedure for san or pilots departing san; it's only the number that is the top altitude which has changed.I asked the controller in charge to have aircraft X file an as soon as possible report; so that we could compare 'notes' and identify the source of confusion/error in this occurrence.R31 discussed the filing of the as soon as possible report with aircraft X; who said that they would file the report. They also explained to R31; that their pre departure clearance said climb via SID except maintain FL290. R31 told them the published top altitude was FL230 and that they should have been climbing to that altitude. Aircraft X questions if the plate has priority over the pre departure clearance and R31 tells them that he's not sure; and to file the report so that both of us; on our side and theirs can get these issues clarified.luckily; aircraft X told us the altitude he was climbing to; rather than taking advantage of the 'unspoken' assigned top altitude available on climb via clearances; otherwise this could have been a pd (pilot deviation); rather than an informational atsap. I don't know anything about pre departure clearance; so if this is the source of the error; I have no recommendation to prevent the re-occurrence of this event.based on my personal experience working various aircraft issued climb via clearances; I find some climb too high; some stop too low; some tell us the altitude assigned when they don't need to; other don't tell us their assigned altitude when they should. There is a lot of confusion on both pilot and controller sides about when pilots are required to say their assigned altitude and when they aren't. We either need significantly more education and clarification of these 'rules' for pilots and controllers; or we should consider getting rid of the 'unspoken' assigned altitude when using climb via clearances. The aim guidance in chapter 5: (page 5-2-11 and 5-2-12) pilots cleared for vertical navigation using the phraseology 'climb via' must inform ATC; upon initial contact; of the altitude leaving and any assigned restrictions not published on the procedure; is too vague to be the guidance from which pilots are expected to derive when to say their assignment altitude and when to omit it. Given the amount of confusion there seems to be in the NAS (national airspace system); the risk of error seems to outweigh the reward of reducing frequency congestion in climb via clearances.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Controller was informed of a pilot who received an erroneous altitude assignment through PDC.

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in with R09 with their altitude leaving; climbing to FL290. The pilot came back again one minute later and told R09 again that he was climbing to FL290. She amended his altitude to FL230; which is the highest altitude owned by Sector 09; and the correct altitude to which this aircraft should have been climbing.FL230 is the PUBLISHED top altitude on the SAN ZZOOO SID; which went into effect as part of the first round of implementation for the Socal Metroplex project. As background; the previous POGGI RNAV SID used by this sector for aircraft departing San Diego; also had a published top altitude. However; on the POGGI SID; the published top altitude was 150; and within SCT airspace; not ZLA airspace. I mention this because I don't believe that climb via to a published top altitude is a new procedure for SAN or pilots departing SAN; it's only the number that is the top altitude which has changed.I asked the CIC to have Aircraft X file an ASAP report; so that we could compare 'notes' and identify the source of confusion/error in this occurrence.R31 discussed the filing of the ASAP report with Aircraft X; who said that they would file the report. They also explained to R31; that their PDC said Climb Via SID except maintain FL290. R31 told them the published top altitude was FL230 and that they should have been climbing to that altitude. Aircraft X questions if the plate has priority over the PDC and R31 tells them that he's not sure; and to file the report so that both of us; on our side and theirs can get these issues clarified.Luckily; Aircraft X told us the altitude he was climbing to; rather than taking advantage of the 'unspoken' assigned top altitude available on climb via clearances; otherwise this could have been a PD (Pilot Deviation); rather than an informational ATSAP. I don't know anything about PDC; so if this is the source of the error; I have no recommendation to prevent the re-occurrence of this event.Based on my personal experience working various aircraft issued climb via clearances; I find some climb too high; some stop too low; some tell us the altitude assigned when they don't need to; other don't tell us their assigned altitude when they should. There is a lot of confusion on both pilot and controller sides about when pilots are required to say their assigned altitude and when they aren't. We either need significantly more education and clarification of these 'rules' for pilots and controllers; or we should consider getting rid of the 'unspoken' assigned altitude when using climb via clearances. The AIM guidance in Chapter 5: (page 5-2-11 and 5-2-12) Pilots cleared for vertical navigation using the phraseology 'climb via' must inform ATC; upon initial contact; of the altitude leaving and any assigned restrictions not published on the procedure; is too vague to be the guidance from which pilots are expected to derive when to say their assignment altitude and when to omit it. Given the amount of confusion there seems to be in the NAS (National Airspace System); the risk of error seems to outweigh the reward of reducing frequency congestion in climb via clearances.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.