 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An emb-145 flight crew and one of the C90 controllers involved describe a misunderstanding between the crew and C90 resulting in vectors for a second approach. After initially being cleared for the visual to runway 27R the EMB145 crew accepts a clearance meant for another aircraft to land runway 27L and moves over.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1245852 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201503 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ORD.Airport |
| State Reference | IL |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Total 18000 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Total 15000 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types |
Narrative:
We were cleared for visual approach for 27R and instructed to contact tower at the marker. Then before switching to the tower; we heard approach control (what we thought was for our flight) offer to switch over to land on 27L. I replied with 'we would appreciate that' but without our call sign. Then; the flying pilot began the side step maneuver to 27L. I (the pilot monitoring) asked approach control for tower frequency (thinking that we need the tower frequency for 27L (not 27R) the approach controller stated that we should have intercepted 27R... Then gave us a heading 360; then 040 and climb to 4000. The approach controller then gave vectors for 27R. Landing was made without incident.both I and my first officer thought we heard the offer from approach control for 27L which (I learned from the approach control supervisor - via telephone conversation) was intended for another aircraft. Plus I did not use my call sigh on the read back. And the controller did not ask for our call sign on read back. For me to be more careful listening to call signs. Always use call signs on read backs - even on those quick response-type ATC communications.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: An EMB-145 flight crew and one of the C90 Controllers involved describe a misunderstanding between the crew and C90 resulting in vectors for a second approach. After initially being cleared for the visual to Runway 27R the EMB145 crew accepts a clearance meant for another aircraft to land Runway 27L and moves over.
Narrative: We were cleared for visual approach for 27R and instructed to contact tower at the marker. Then before switching to the tower; we heard approach control (what we thought was for our flight) offer to switch over to land on 27L. I replied with 'we would appreciate that' but without our call sign. Then; the flying pilot began the side step maneuver to 27L. I (the pilot monitoring) asked approach control for tower frequency (thinking that we need the tower frequency for 27L (not 27R) the approach controller stated that we should have intercepted 27R... Then gave us a heading 360; then 040 and climb to 4000. The approach controller then gave vectors for 27R. Landing was made without incident.Both I and my first officer thought we heard the offer from approach control for 27L which (I learned from the approach control supervisor - via telephone conversation) was intended for another aircraft. Plus I did not use my call sigh on the read back. And the controller did not ask for our call sign on read back. For me to be more careful listening to call signs. Always use call signs on read backs - even on those quick response-type ATC communications.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.