Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Initial climb altitude confusion due to poor wording on ATC plate and poor ATC clarification of assigned altitude.The initial climb states to climb to 3000 ft off of the 12s while on runway heading. There is no fix to expect further climb and all further altitudes are at points north of the airport. We checked in with a climb via the BMRNG 2 call to NorCal Departure and leveled at 3000 feet. There was confusion as to what the clearance from ATC was and so we remained at 3000 feet. A conversation was exchanged where ATC asked us our TOP altitude as well as yelling at us to climb to 17000. At no time did he ever say Climb Unrestricted to 17;000 feet. I understand there might be a Jeppesen issue with this departure but our PDC clearance and the ridiculous conversation we exchanged with ATC did little to clarify our assigned altitude. All ATC had to do was say climb unrestricted to 17000 and all questions would have been answered. Why is the 3000 even on the plate if it is irrelevant? There is no fix that corresponds to 3000 feet. The FAA plates show altitude restraints at points by underlining for at or above; over lining for at or below and both for a hard altitude? This is a clear and quick way to see altitudes instead of finding it buried in a paragraph at the bottom of the page. Why can't Jeppesen adopt this simple visual reference instead of their complicated and in this case; wrong instructions. If there is no hold down altitude this might be the only departure underlying Class B airspace I can think of where you go runway heading to Flight levels while you try to check in with Departure. Seems a bit odd.... And dangerous.If there is confusion on the Altitude assigned ATC should expect crews to take the most conservative path. In this case leveling at 3000 feet. Clarification with ATC should be welcome; not followed by unclear questions and raised voices. ATC asking what my top altitude is has no relevance if there are hold down altitudes prior. This isn't a quiz and I don't appreciate ATC trying to school me when I am at 3000 feet over the 10th largest city in the U.S. Climb via not very clarifying when you have to read a paragraph buried At the of an approach plate to find it while you are going 250 knots. Climb Via and runway heading on the same segment does not make any sense. Don't issue that clearance and don't build RNAV departures that way. Start the departure when cleared to the waypoint that means something.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported he departed on the SJC BMRNG 2 Departure and leveled at 3;000 FT which the crew interpreted as the charted climb limit. NCT was not happy with that; but the crew was not cleared to 17;000 FT as NCT expected. The reporter thought the Jeppesen departure chart format was difficult to read.