Challenger 300
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
After departing 19R on the BOACH FIVE RNAV DEPARTURE and passing the JAKER waypoint; we noticed traffic at our 2 o'clock position less than 2;000 FT above us that appeared to be on a flight path that intersected with ours. I knew our climb rate would take us through the other aircraft's altitude very soon so I immediately leveled off at 8;000 FT. As I was leveling the aircraft off we received a TA Alert with the 'traffic; traffic' audible. Precisely; at that time the non flying pilot asked ATC if we were still given an unrestricted climb of which ATC said we had not been. Realizing we were already above the altitude restriction at the next waypoint (ROPPR); I immediately began a descent out of 8;000 FT and as I was doing so we received an RA and a command to descend. I immediately descended further into the green band (to roughly 7;400 FT) to comply with the RA. Shortly after; ATC told us to fly a 180 degree heading and go direct to BOACH. Even after briefing the RNAV departure with the non-flying pilot (before engine start and on the taxi) if I would have simply asked about the climb to FL190 being unrestricted or reconfirmed that all the way points were 'at or above' with ATC this wouldn't have happened. For some reason (maybe because we are usually given an unrestricted climb) I thought that was our clearance. It wasn't. As the flying pilot; I could have easily avoided this altitude deviation. I take responsibility for being above the 7;000 FT restriction at ROPPR. It is possible that I assumed the unrestricted climb was in effect due to not seeing the word 'Below' on the chart. Using the VNAV function of the automation until making sure from the Departure Controller that we are indeed cleared to the Altitude Clearance Limit unrestricted. ANYTIME an RNAV departure is assigned triple check the altitude restrictions and what our actual clearance truly is. At some airports; the ATC Tower will use the phraseology 'RNAV departure to XXXXX cleared for takeoff' when there is an altitude restriction that includes 'at or below' or say 'Between 4;800 - 7;000' on some RNAV Departures... when given this RNAV departure out of LAS; this might have alerted me that we were not given an unrestricted climb or have 'at or above' on all the way points.
Our clearance was the Boach 5 Departure too HEC as filed. We had reviewed and briefed the clearance. The two (three) possible restriction being the max 230 KTS speed for Runway 1L/R and the 'at or above' 13;000 MSL altitude for BOACH Intersection. Upon receiving Runway 19R for departure we assured our runway was selected in the FMS. We had set FL190 in the altitude selector per the departure routing. After crossing JAKER Intersection en route to BOACH; I observed conflicting traffic on the TCAS and visually at 2 O'clock. I told the First Officer to stop his climb and that is when I realized we had exceeded the climb restriction over ROPPR of 7;000 MSL. At the same time we received a TCAS TA followed by a TCAS RA to descend due to our rate of climb. The other aircraft was in sight and at no time was our aircraft in danger. I immediately quarried Departure if we had been issued an unrestricted climb. She stated; 'No' and we were now assigned a heading towards BOACH Intersection. She then cleared us direct to BOACH and assigned a climb altitude. At no time did the Departure Controller stop our climb prior to my query!
CL300 flight crew reports not noticing the crossing restriction at ROPPR on the BOACH 5 RNAV from LAS. A TCAS RA is generated and the crew takes evasive action. A runway change prior to departure may have contributed to the error.