Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 150; Flight Crew Total 21000; Flight Crew Type 11000
Time Pressure; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
The Controller told us to file a report because 'the FAA was looking into 321s not making the climb restriction.' Controller also mentioned something about 'using Runway 01R with this SID and having other options.' And also said they are looking into us knowingly accepting a clearance we cannot make. The fix in question is RIOOS on the Trailer 9 SID at or above 13;000 MSL without a speed requirement. Once airborne if the Controller needed the altitude and was unable to offer a delay vector then I could slow down (i.e. climb faster) or add power to make the restriction. As far as takeoff options were concerned; the wind was 330/20G27KT; so a takeoff on 26R at our weight would not be a safe option. We were heavy and the FMC did predict we would be lower than required at RIOOS; at 320 KTS. The cost index was set to 55 and I had programmed the current temperature; which would give the FMC a better prediction; but it is still just a prediction to use for information on the ground. A NOTAM for LAS stating that ATC will not offer vectors or reduced speed to make the climb restrictions; and making RIOOS a mandatory altitude with a speed requirement.
A321 Captain reported being unable to meet crossing restrictions while on the Trailer 9 SID.