Narrative:

ZME had cleared us to descend so as to cross holly springs VOR at 10000' at 250 KTS. Upon arriving at holly springs at the assigned altitude and airspeed,the handoff to mem approach was issued by center. We contacted mem approach and advised that we were level at 10000' at 250 KTS, and had the ATIS information. The approach controller (female voice) responded with, 'roger, turn left heading 270 degrees, descend and maintain 6000'.' I acknowledged the clearance with a full readback, including the full call sign. Shortly after we leveled at 6000' on the 270 degree heading (3-4 mins after the original clearance), we were again assigned a heading of 270 degrees by the same controller. I advised the controller that we were established on a 270 degree heading at 6000'. About 20 seconds later a male controller told us we must have accepted a clearance meant for another aircraft. I asked the controller if this had created a conflict. He responded with 'negative...' I called the watch supervisor shortly after arriving at gate. I asked if a C/a resulted, and he said, 'no, there were no problems and I would rather forget about the whole occurrence.' I told him that I was in agreement, but added that I felt that the student controller should have been more closely supervised. Moreover, the instrument should have intervened sooner when he noticed that confusion may have existed about the clrncs issued by his student.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR TOOK ALT AND HEADING INTENDED FOR ANOTHER ACFT.

Narrative: ZME HAD CLRED US TO DSND SO AS TO CROSS HOLLY SPRINGS VOR AT 10000' AT 250 KTS. UPON ARRIVING AT HOLLY SPRINGS AT THE ASSIGNED ALT AND AIRSPD,THE HDOF TO MEM APCH WAS ISSUED BY CENTER. WE CONTACTED MEM APCH AND ADVISED THAT WE WERE LEVEL AT 10000' AT 250 KTS, AND HAD THE ATIS INFO. THE APCH CTLR (FEMALE VOICE) RESPONDED WITH, 'ROGER, TURN LEFT HDG 270 DEGS, DSND AND MAINTAIN 6000'.' I ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLRNC WITH A FULL READBACK, INCLUDING THE FULL CALL SIGN. SHORTLY AFTER WE LEVELED AT 6000' ON THE 270 DEG HDG (3-4 MINS AFTER THE ORIGINAL CLRNC), WE WERE AGAIN ASSIGNED A HDG OF 270 DEGS BY THE SAME CTLR. I ADVISED THE CTLR THAT WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON A 270 DEG HDG AT 6000'. ABOUT 20 SECS LATER A MALE CTLR TOLD US WE MUST HAVE ACCEPTED A CLRNC MEANT FOR ANOTHER ACFT. I ASKED THE CTLR IF THIS HAD CREATED A CONFLICT. HE RESPONDED WITH 'NEGATIVE...' I CALLED THE WATCH SUPVR SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVING AT GATE. I ASKED IF A C/A RESULTED, AND HE SAID, 'NO, THERE WERE NO PROBS AND I WOULD RATHER FORGET ABOUT THE WHOLE OCCURRENCE.' I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS IN AGREEMENT, BUT ADDED THAT I FELT THAT THE STUDENT CTLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CLOSELY SUPERVISED. MOREOVER, THE INSTR SHOULD HAVE INTERVENED SOONER WHEN HE NOTICED THAT CONFUSION MAY HAVE EXISTED ABOUT THE CLRNCS ISSUED BY HIS STUDENT.

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.