finelay...
Interesting one!
All I can say, is if this is an "SOP" or frequent situation, then it is inevitable due to human factors that one day it will occur. Whether it is misleading phraseology from you, or misunderstanding from him, someone sometime will make the mistake.
The BA SOP (and I suspect most others) is that one pilot enters the anticipated SID into the "box", the other independently checks it correctly relates to the paper. They then brief, again cross checking their understanding of the text / box setup. If on getting ATC clearance, it differs, the above process is repeated.
If, now, just prior to takeoff, the SID is amended, the whole of those safeguards are gone. One has a complex 3 dimensional picture in mind, and it has been "tweaked". It is quite easy to tweak in more than one way that
appears to meet your mental picture of what is involved.
Probably impractical, but better would be to cancel the SID, and re-issue the departure in text, like you do for westbounds from LHR.
I am not saying AFR were "innocent". I am just saying that an amendment to a SID in this fashion increases the chance of error, and therefore it is more likely that someone will make the error.
Would you accept a clearance to do such a thing when it is clearly a) Sector altitude unsafe and b) Barmy?
I would accept one quite happily. Plenty of SIDs etc. involve portions below SSA etc. and similar altitude restrictions. MAP at ARN is to 1500', SID at NCE, with very high SSAs is (was?) frequently amended to 1500' - even 1000' on occasion.
assuring the RAF they did not have to launch Tornados
Would only be fair - the French Mirages spend half their time intercepting airliners in France these days...
NoD