Narrative:

Flight ord-rdu on mar/xx/94 departed at XA25 local with a light load. Normally, ATC keeps you at FL290 until almost south of indianapolis (vhp), and then we are cleared to climb to FL370. On this trip we were asked if we could be level at 37000 ft within 5 1/2 mins. We checked our performance computer, which indicated 5 mins to FL370 at this particular weight, so we accepted the clearance and proceeded to climb. In short, the plane ran out of steam at 36000 ft and refused to climb further without getting low speed warnings. We requested relief from the climb restriction (5 1/2 mins) and descended to FL350 to regain speed. There was no conflict involved (I asked), but I am writing because I believe the performance information contained in the performance management system of super 80's is overly optimistic and can lead to problems when accepting 'time to climb' clrncs (something I will never do again). Also, I believe the ATC clearance was given to provide relief from sector criteria between ATC facilities, not because of actual traffic avoidance. Just because a LOA exists between sectors to handoff aircraft at certain altitudes does not mean my flight has to be burdened with a climb restriction in terms of time. A distance restriction would be better in the future. For your files, I have written this up.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH CLB RESTRICTION AT ALT.

Narrative: FLT ORD-RDU ON MAR/XX/94 DEPARTED AT XA25 LCL WITH A LIGHT LOAD. NORMALLY, ATC KEEPS YOU AT FL290 UNTIL ALMOST S OF INDIANAPOLIS (VHP), AND THEN WE ARE CLRED TO CLB TO FL370. ON THIS TRIP WE WERE ASKED IF WE COULD BE LEVEL AT 37000 FT WITHIN 5 1/2 MINS. WE CHKED OUR PERFORMANCE COMPUTER, WHICH INDICATED 5 MINS TO FL370 AT THIS PARTICULAR WT, SO WE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC AND PROCEEDED TO CLB. IN SHORT, THE PLANE RAN OUT OF STEAM AT 36000 FT AND REFUSED TO CLB FURTHER WITHOUT GETTING LOW SPD WARNINGS. WE REQUESTED RELIEF FROM THE CLB RESTRICTION (5 1/2 MINS) AND DSNDED TO FL350 TO REGAIN SPD. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT INVOLVED (I ASKED), BUT I AM WRITING BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE PERFORMANCE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PERFORMANCE MGMNT SYS OF SUPER 80'S IS OVERLY OPTIMISTIC AND CAN LEAD TO PROBS WHEN ACCEPTING 'TIME TO CLB' CLRNCS (SOMETHING I WILL NEVER DO AGAIN). ALSO, I BELIEVE THE ATC CLRNC WAS GIVEN TO PROVIDE RELIEF FROM SECTOR CRITERIA BTWN ATC FACILITIES, NOT BECAUSE OF ACTUAL TFC AVOIDANCE. JUST BECAUSE A LOA EXISTS BTWN SECTORS TO HDOF ACFT AT CERTAIN ALTS DOES NOT MEAN MY FLT HAS TO BE BURDENED WITH A CLB RESTRICTION IN TERMS OF TIME. A DISTANCE RESTRICTION WOULD BE BETTER IN THE FUTURE. FOR YOUR FILES, I HAVE WRITTEN THIS UP.

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.