Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness; Workload
Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
We were initially cleared into DFW via the SEEVR1 arrival. We noticed a notam on the ATIS that warned flight crews descending below 11000 at STONZ and 3 other fixes. We noted that this wasn't on our arrival. While flying direct to RRNET; we were cleared via the BRDJE1 arrival; which also uses RRNET as a fix. We re-briefed the new arrival noting that this included this fix crossing that the ATIS had warned. The task saturation was quite busy during the descent. The LCA's have been teaching us to set the lowest altitude on the 'descend via' arrivals. This is how we had our FCP configured. Somehow; we failed to level off at STONZ at 11000 and caught our error over the fix at 10000. Our FCP was set to level off at 8000 at ROCKZ. We notified ATC of our error and were issued a new clearance to remain at 10000. We continued and landed without incident.  I think the biggest mistake was to set the altitude preselect at the lowest hard altitude when there is a higher hard altitude to obey. If we would have set our altitude preselect at the highest hard altitude; the aircraft would have leveled off and then we could have set the next one after the level off. I recently finished OE on the CRJ 900 and I was taught to set in the lowest altitude; but this will not protect from this type of event. Setting the next hard altitude may be a better technique in this situation. Descend Via RNAV arrivals in general increase the flight deck workload many times over and exponentially increase the chance of deviations in aircraft without VNAV and auto throttles like the CRJ. Obviously this has been a problem at DFW since it was stated in the atis.
Cleared via SEEVR.1 RNAV arrival originally as filed. Briefed this arrival into DFW. Then after briefing this arrival we were cleared DCT RRNET and the BRDJE.1 RNAV into DFW. We were given a descend via clearance on the arrival. After passing PITHY above 11000 and at 250 I began slowing to 220 for STONZ and would have been at 8000 MSL at ROCKZ and 210 at the speed. I had 8000 in as the bottom altitude as set in from the beginning of the descent. I was advised as a course of action by other LCA and instructors as the correct course for altitude selection on RNAV arrivals. I missed the level off at 11000 at STONZ. I noticed this deviation at 10000 MSL and quickly slowed the descent and began the climb again to which the captain called ATC and notified them which they advised a climb to 10000 and level and they would give us the next descent. We complied and flight continued without incident. If there is a hard altitude on RNAV arrivals from now on I will be putting in the hard altitude crossing instead of the lowest altitude on the RNAV. Lowest altitude on arrival was 8000 MSL and that is what I had set in. Everything on the arrival was great until that point. That 11000 At STONZ was a hard altitude at 220 KNOTS. A clear and defined method for RNAV arrivals for us would be good. I believe we are getting a lot of mixed info as to these arrivals. In future I will make sure that any hard altitudes on arrivals are put into the Altitude selector. Also we noticed on ATIS that the airport had this particular fix on there as numerous deviations from aircraft descending below this fix. We are not the first ones apparently. So maybe looking into why this is happening would also be good.
CRJ-900 flight crew reports missing a crossing restriction at STONZ on the BRDJE1 RNAV arrival to DFW. The minimum altitude on the arrival of 8000 feet was set in the MCP and the vertical speed was being controlled via the autopilot; as the aircraft has no VNAV capability.