Narrative:

While flying a 270 degree heading to intercept the 251 degree radial of den VOR on the rockies 2 departure at 12000 ft MSL, ATC told us to expect climb clearance in 6 mi. After approximately 8 mi, the first officer and I discussed the special instructions on the rockies 2 departure which state, 'caution, if climb clearance above 14000 ft is not received prior to 25 NM west of den VOR, identify and climb immediately to MEA and advise.' MEA for the segment is 16300 ft MSL. We could not communicate with ATC due to frequency congestion. At 25 DME I was able to request a climb due to terrain. At the same time the first officer initiated a climb and idented. ATC informed us that a climb was not necessary. As the first officer climbed through 12600 ft, climb clearance was issued to 23000 ft. At that time I noted traffic at 9 O'clock which would pass behind us and was in a descent to 13000 ft. During our climb, ATC asked us to call den TRACON. Upon landing in ontario, ca, I called to discuss the incident with the supervisor on duty. She explained that in that area, terrain clearance was not yet a factor when we initiated our climb and that the special instructions in the SID were really meant for lost communications. She also mentioned that this situation had occurred before. While I understand ATC has many constraints and a climb was not immediately necessary, the special instructions on the SID are very explicit. Additionally, there is a separate lost communications procedure on the SID. There is a discrepancy between published procedures given to pilots and the routings and expectations of the controllers. This is a situation that will occur again, likely resulting in a traffic conflict. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter flies the B737-300, domiciled at den. He is very much aware of the terrain around den and his home. The reporter knows that he did the right thing, he followed the special instructions. 'What would you say to an inspector? We don't really need to do this!' the air carrier's ATC coordinator has been notified of this problem and is working on it. The reporter is now aware of the FAA safety hotline and will call them on this. ZDV acknowledged to the reporter that they have had this same problem before. Supplemental information from acn 355393: we tried to ask ATC for a higher altitude due to mountainous terrain. ATC finally heard our request for higher, issued a clearance higher and stated that the 12000 ft terrain ahead was still 10 mi away.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B737-300 CREW WAS CRITICIZED BY TRACON DEP CTL WHEN THE CREW FOLLOWED THE 'SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS' AND 'LOST COM PROCS' OF THE ROCKIES SID AT DEN.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING A 270 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT THE 251 DEG RADIAL OF DEN VOR ON THE ROCKIES 2 DEP AT 12000 FT MSL, ATC TOLD US TO EXPECT CLB CLRNC IN 6 MI. AFTER APPROX 8 MI, THE FO AND I DISCUSSED THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS ON THE ROCKIES 2 DEP WHICH STATE, 'CAUTION, IF CLB CLRNC ABOVE 14000 FT IS NOT RECEIVED PRIOR TO 25 NM W OF DEN VOR, IDENT AND CLB IMMEDIATELY TO MEA AND ADVISE.' MEA FOR THE SEGMENT IS 16300 FT MSL. WE COULD NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ATC DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION. AT 25 DME I WAS ABLE TO REQUEST A CLB DUE TO TERRAIN. AT THE SAME TIME THE FO INITIATED A CLB AND IDENTED. ATC INFORMED US THAT A CLB WAS NOT NECESSARY. AS THE FO CLBED THROUGH 12600 FT, CLB CLRNC WAS ISSUED TO 23000 FT. AT THAT TIME I NOTED TFC AT 9 O'CLOCK WHICH WOULD PASS BEHIND US AND WAS IN A DSCNT TO 13000 FT. DURING OUR CLB, ATC ASKED US TO CALL DEN TRACON. UPON LNDG IN ONTARIO, CA, I CALLED TO DISCUSS THE INCIDENT WITH THE SUPVR ON DUTY. SHE EXPLAINED THAT IN THAT AREA, TERRAIN CLRNC WAS NOT YET A FACTOR WHEN WE INITIATED OUR CLB AND THAT THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS IN THE SID WERE REALLY MEANT FOR LOST COMS. SHE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS SIT HAD OCCURRED BEFORE. WHILE I UNDERSTAND ATC HAS MANY CONSTRAINTS AND A CLB WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY, THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS ON THE SID ARE VERY EXPLICIT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A SEPARATE LOST COMS PROC ON THE SID. THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BTWN PUBLISHED PROCS GIVEN TO PLTS AND THE ROUTINGS AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE CTLRS. THIS IS A SIT THAT WILL OCCUR AGAIN, LIKELY RESULTING IN A TFC CONFLICT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR FLIES THE B737-300, DOMICILED AT DEN. HE IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE TERRAIN AROUND DEN AND HIS HOME. THE RPTR KNOWS THAT HE DID THE RIGHT THING, HE FOLLOWED THE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. 'WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO AN INSPECTOR? WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO DO THIS!' THE ACR'S ATC COORDINATOR HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS PROB AND IS WORKING ON IT. THE RPTR IS NOW AWARE OF THE FAA SAFETY HOTLINE AND WILL CALL THEM ON THIS. ZDV ACKNOWLEDGED TO THE RPTR THAT THEY HAVE HAD THIS SAME PROB BEFORE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 355393: WE TRIED TO ASK ATC FOR A HIGHER ALT DUE TO MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN. ATC FINALLY HEARD OUR REQUEST FOR HIGHER, ISSUED A CLRNC HIGHER AND STATED THAT THE 12000 FT TERRAIN AHEAD WAS STILL 10 MI AWAY.

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.