Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During flight we had problems communicating with ATC regarding a crossing restriction on the SUUTR1 RNAV arrival into SMF. Our filed altitude was FL280. Upon joining the arrival at the NURAY intersection I asked the First officer to request 'altitude relief' at the TRLOC intersection ahead on the arrival. The procedure indicates that TRLOC must be crossed at or Above FL290. This was the second time we had done this procedure today and in all cases in the past the controllers have given our flight direct to SUUTR; essentially removing the TRLOC restriction from our arrival. We when requested the 'altitude relief' the controller responded confused to our request. We again explained that we were going to be 1000 feet low of the minimum altitude at TRLOC and requested that he 'waive' the altitude at TRLOC. He again responded with no help or no instruction. We then asked the controller if he needed us to 'climb to meet the restrictions on the arrival.' Although I did not truly want to climb I was concerned because we were approaching TRLOC very quickly and this controller was refusing to help us meet the restriction. He responded saying 'descend via does not indicate climb.' I told him that I understood that but we were approaching a fix at which we would not be meeting the minimum altitude so can we please go direct to SUUTR. He said 'no I can't do that for traffic.' At this point I decided that we were just jamming radios to talk to a controller that I felt was being completely unreasonable or difficult intentionally. I asked for an ATC phone number and the initials of the controller. We crossed TRLOC at FL280; 1000 feet lower than required per the procedure. Upon landing I called the ATC facility and they surprised me by already knowing my flight number and expecting the call. I asked them to explain their side of the story and it immediately became clear that they were focused on the wrong thing. The third time I asked the controller for help at this intersection I asked if it we should climb to meet the restriction and he responded with a rather snaky response about 'descend via' language. When I called they seemed to only be worried about my request to climb and the impracticality of this request. When they were finished talking I explained my side of the story. I referenced the procedure and the notes related to it. In no portion of the procedure does it indicate that it is okay to miss any restrictions on the arrival.I also asked the controllers to reference the PEBLE6 departure from SAN. In the textual description of the procedure it clearly states that aircraft filed for final altitudes below 14;000 feet do not need to meet the restriction at MEDLY on the departure. When I showed them this they understood what I was saying. They understood that even though I realized my final altitude prevented me from flying at the restricted altitude; I was trying to receive clearance to cross the fix at the wrong altitude. I made it very clear that I felt the controller was being difficult and refusing to help because he felt the question was to be smart or cocky. They indicated that he truly was confused and did not understand what I was requesting when I use the words 'altitude relief' or 'waive the altitude.'The controller that I spoke with indicated that he truly was not aware of what I was saying and that upon looking at the procedure and reviewing the AIM; there is no guidance given for situations in which aircraft are assigned a final cruising altitude lower than an altitude on an Arrival. The controller I spoke to was very helpful and understood that I was trying to ask for this clearance in order to protect myself; the other pilot and our certificates. The controller also indicated that because of lack of information; or guidance that they would be filling out a report to raise awareness to the FAA and other controllers about the need to clarification or guidance for flights in this situation. The conclusion was that we both would write a report to request that something addresses this issue for future reference. I asked the controller what I can say next time to better explain my dilemma and what I'm requesting in this situation. He really did not indicate any other words to me that would make my request more clear. Initially he actually used the word 'waive' in his example. I pointed this out to him and he laughed and said he understood. We decided that using the word 'Remove' altitude restriction would be appropriate for future reference. Next time I don't know what I can do differently except request a different intersection or altitude removal earlier in the flight.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported confusion with a crossing restriction higher than the cleared altitude. The pilot requested relief from the altitude restriction or if a climb should be initiated to make the crossing. The controller was confused and after many attempts the pilots remained at the present altitude and requested a phone number.