Narrative:

Small aircraft Y was southbound on V27 southeast of pye level at 7000'. Air carrier X had departed sfo bnd for the orient on a stins departure climbing to 6000' as per LOA with bay approach. Air carrier X checked on climbing to 6000'. The radar controller rogered X by saying, 'climbing to 6000,' as per a facility directive to acknowledge altitudes aircraft are climbing or descending to, emphasizing the 'to 6000' due to the type of air carrier. Air carrier X rogered up to 6000' and proceeded to pass his assigned altitude and narrowly miss small aircraft Y. The radar controller saw the confliction when X was only 200' above his assigned altitude. He issued immediate turns to both aircraft and a descent to air carrier X back to his assigned altitude. The aircraft did see each other and were separated. The problem could have been that due to the broken english of the flight crew (it was a foreign air carrier) they understood the controller's readback ('roger, climbing to 6000') as a climb to 26000', even though there was no use of flight levels in the communication sequence. This is not the first time there has been misunderstanding with foreign speaking crews no matter how slowly you talk and enunciate. Possible better english lessons are required. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter gave experience level of herself and the radar controller involved. Facility review showed aircraft had 1 mi sep at same altitude. Facility called incident a pilot deviation. C/a activated ok. Supplemental information from acn 106172: air carrier X called on my frequency, climbing to 6000'. X and Y were traffic for each other, so I 'rogered' the air carrier, climbing to 6000' as per local orders to restate assigned altitudes on first call. Closest proximity was approximately 200', and 1-2 mi.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN ACR AND SMA. PLT DEVIATION OR OPERATIONAL ERROR. TWO CTLR REPORTS.

Narrative: SMA Y WAS SBND ON V27 SE OF PYE LEVEL AT 7000'. ACR X HAD DEPARTED SFO BND FOR THE ORIENT ON A STINS DEP CLBING TO 6000' AS PER LOA WITH BAY APCH. ACR X CHKED ON CLBING TO 6000'. THE RADAR CTLR ROGERED X BY SAYING, 'CLBING TO 6000,' AS PER A FAC DIRECTIVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALTS ACFT ARE CLBING OR DSNDING TO, EMPHASIZING THE 'TO 6000' DUE TO THE TYPE OF ACR. ACR X ROGERED UP TO 6000' AND PROCEEDED TO PASS HIS ASSIGNED ALT AND NARROWLY MISS SMA Y. THE RADAR CTLR SAW THE CONFLICTION WHEN X WAS ONLY 200' ABOVE HIS ASSIGNED ALT. HE ISSUED IMMEDIATE TURNS TO BOTH ACFT AND A DSCNT TO ACR X BACK TO HIS ASSIGNED ALT. THE ACFT DID SEE EACH OTHER AND WERE SEPARATED. THE PROB COULD HAVE BEEN THAT DUE TO THE BROKEN ENGLISH OF THE FLT CREW (IT WAS A FOREIGN ACR) THEY UNDERSTOOD THE CTLR'S READBACK ('ROGER, CLBING TO 6000') AS A CLB TO 26000', EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO USE OF FLT LEVELS IN THE COM SEQUENCE. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THERE HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTANDING WITH FOREIGN SPEAKING CREWS NO MATTER HOW SLOWLY YOU TALK AND ENUNCIATE. POSSIBLE BETTER ENGLISH LESSONS ARE REQUIRED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR GAVE EXPERIENCE LEVEL OF HERSELF AND THE RADAR CTLR INVOLVED. FAC REVIEW SHOWED ACFT HAD 1 MI SEP AT SAME ALT. FAC CALLED INCIDENT A PLTDEV. C/A ACTIVATED OK. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 106172: ACR X CALLED ON MY FREQ, CLBING TO 6000'. X AND Y WERE TFC FOR EACH OTHER, SO I 'ROGERED' THE ACR, CLBING TO 6000' AS PER LCL ORDERS TO RESTATE ASSIGNED ALTS ON FIRST CALL. CLOSEST PROX WAS APPROX 200', AND 1-2 MI.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.