Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Special Use DC FRZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X entered the FRZ (D.C. Flight Restricted Zone). Aircraft X; an IAD Departure; had to be vectored off the SID for traffic. Aircraft Y a departure off BWI was issued 'CLIMB VIA the SID' on initial contact. Aircraft Y was supposed to be climbing to 17000 ft; instead leveled off at 4000 ft. The controller re-issued 'CLIMB VIA the SID' and stated the top altitude 17000 ft. Aircraft Y was out of position to make a crossing restriction of At or Above 11000 ft putting the aircraft in conflict with Aircraft X who was supposed to pass beneath at 10000 ft. Aircraft Y confirmed he would make the restriction but crossed the fix at 9500 ft. The controller; recognizing the conflict; turned Aircraft X 15 degrees right; off the SID to establish divergence. Aircraft X entered approximately 1 mile into the FRZ for 5 miles before being vectored out of the FRZ.Due to recent scrutiny of the FRZ by the NCRCC (National Capitol Regional Coordination Center) TRACON no longer has the ability to vector aircraft off of SIDs/STARs for safety reasons and enter the FRZ. Coordination must be accomplished with the NCRCC and approval must be given before an aircraft can deviate into the FRZ. Unfortunately; situations involving traffic or weather develop quickly and coordination cannot always be accomplished prior to aircraft entering the FRZ. The NCRCC has adopted a virtual zero tolerance policy on any aircraft entering the FRZ who is not departing/arriving DCA/ADW/MD3 airports; even if the air carriers are on the published approval list.The NCRCC has made it abundantly clear that they regard 'safety issues' as simply avoiding a mid-air collision. Obviously; that is contrary to ATC's perspective of safety and contrary to our safety culture. It is understandable that the FRZ not be violated routinely; or in most cases without advanced coordination. By adopting a zero tolerance policy of FRZ entry; controllers' options to avoid conflicts are severely diminished; especially in such a congested piece of airspace where crossing flows of traffic are moving in excess of 250 knots. The NCRCC must provide specific; written guidance on what is allowed and what is not allowed. If their intention is to keep every single aircraft out of the FRZ; TRACON must begin prohibiting certain SIDs/STARs. Controllers and FLM's (Front Line Managers) are put in a difficult spot when they are operating with no margin for error and aircraft need to deviate off of an established procedure.


Second narrative: Our initial clearance on the ground was 'climb via the TERPZ6 departure OTTTO transition except maintain 4000 ft' After takeoff my check in with Departure was '[Call sign] 3000 ft climbing 4000 ft'. ATC's reply was 'Roger [call sign] climb via the Sid' Since that was what we were already doing we proceeded with our previous altitude assignment and returned our attention to navigating the route assigned. Departure complained shortly thereafter that we weren't climbing and asked if we would make our restriction and assigned us 'climb via the Sid maintain 17000 ft' (the top of the Sid). We attempted but were unable to make the restriction and the next controller directed us to expedite our climb. No further action was taken.In my opinion; if you give someone a restriction on a departure or arrival; something must be said to indicate that restriction no longer applies. Would it kill the controller to say 'climb via the Sid maintain 17000 ft' or 'Top Altitude'? I have since received the same clearance on the ground and noticed this time that Departure Control at least said 'climb via the Terpz6 departure' which is more in-line with a descend via clearance. That still leaves the possibility of a misunderstanding regarding the initial altitude assignment though. Our pre departure briefing included 'if ATC doesn't relieve us of the altitude assignment read back climb via the Sid maintain 17000 ft'. It is a shame we needed to introduce all this new phraseology into a climb and descent system that already had all that in place. Even in Canada climb and maintain or descend and maintain automatically include restrictions on the route unless otherwise directed by ATC.


Synopsis: PCT Controller and an air carrier Captain reported some confusion with clearances that resulted in the aircraft missing the crossing restriction. As a result conflicting traffic was vectored into the Washington DC Flight Restricted Zone.