CRJ-200 flight crew reports needing a weather deviation during climb; but is unable to obtain clearance prior to deviating on their own. This puts the crew in conflict with VFR traffic above and ATC amends the clearance to 11;000 FT; which is overshot initially.

Date: 2011-06 · Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200) · Phase: climb

Anomalies: conflict-airborne-conflict|deviation-altitude-overshoot|deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance|inflight-event-encounter-weather-turbulence

Synopsis

CRJ-200 flight crew reports needing a weather deviation during climb; but is unable to obtain clearance prior to deviating on their own. This puts the crew in conflict with VFR traffic above and ATC amends the clearance to 11;000 FT; which is overshot initially.

Narrative

During climb out with we were given radar vectors initially. There were numerous thunderstorm cells and buildups in the area. ATC cleared us direct GCV and up to 14;000 FT. As the Captain (PM) was reading the clearance back it was apparent that the clearance would take us right in the middle of a cell with heavy precipitation depicted on the radar 5 NM ahead. I motioned to the Captain that we would need right deviations to avoid the cell and he added the request to the end of his readback. Houston Center did not acknowledge and started an exchange with a different aircraft. With no time to wait we decided to turn right 5 to 10 degrees to avoid the cell. Shortly thereafter ATC got back to us and the Captain renewed the request for deviations. ATC told us to standby and we checked TCAS for a reason the request would not be immediately approved. The Captain called out a TCAS target that was 12 o'clock; about 5 NM ahead; above us and closing. I started a turn back towards GCV and increased climb rate to clear the storm cell and get through the other aircraft's altitude before the distance closed. Shortly thereafter ATC advised us of the VFR traffic and amended our assigned altitude to 11;000 FT. We where climbing through 11;000 FT. at that time and at a high rate of climb. I disconnected the autopilot and stopped the climb rate as quickly as possible; reaching 11;400 FT before returning to 11;000 FT. At this point the other aircraft was about 2.5 to 3 NM at our 2 o'clock and about 400-500 FT above our altitude. With numerous buildups in the area we where unable to visually acquire the VFR traffic. Once we passed the traffic ATC cleared us to deviate and cleared us to a higher altitude. We did not receive a TCAS TA or RA; and ATC made no mention of any deviations.Weather; ATC communication issues; and VFR traffic skirting an area of IMC were the most obvious threats. The lateral deviation from our clearance was unavoidable given the weather ahead. If ATC had acknowledged the deviation request during our initial exchange there would have been more time to derive a solution. It may have been better to say we were unable to accept the clearance; but that wasn't immediately apparent until the course preview on the FMS appeared during mid-read back. I suspect ATC didn't hear or someone stepped on the deviation request made after the clearance read back. In hindsight I probably should have slowed the climb and accepted the rough ride. Instead our airspeed dropped to 220 KTS; we quickly closed on the target's altitude; and I overshot an amended altitude clearance (although this was so late there was no chance to level off in time).

Second reporter narrative

In this case ATC issued a clearance that had to be complied with right away and I wasn't able to communicate to the Controller that it would not work. I should have told the Controller immediately that we were unable GCV. By the time I read back the clearance and put it into the FMS and saw that I couldn't accept I wasn't able to get in touch with the Controller. I could have declared an emergency or continued with the deviation and leveled at 10;000 to avoid the traffic. To keep this from happening again; pilots should be ready to decline the clearance when dealing with thunderstorms. Ready to say unable. I thought that 5 degrees right of direct GCV wasn't a big deal at all; but now I know it is.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.