Narrative:

Our corp operation flies a shuttle to and from vny and tucson, az, 3 times daily. Our flight plan is stored with lax ARTCC under the call sign xxy, which is one of our small transport X's. When we use our other small transport Y, xyy, we make the change in call sign with vny clearance when we pick up our clearance. In this incident, we were in xyy. My copilot had received the clearance and changed the call sign. Subsequently, both ground and local controller (who I believe was the same person) referred to us as 'xxy,' which we corrected by using the proper call sign. We were cleared to depart, and upon contact with bur departure, there was further confusion re: our call sign. Our clearance had included a VFR climb to 6000' on runway heading (340 degrees). Passing 5500' my copilot called bur who issued 'intercept the palmdale 218 degree right' (normal route). We requested a continued climb and bur stated 'climb to any altitude VFR.' we responded by indicating we would climb to 17500'. We were then switched to another bur controller, who was also confused as to our call sign. The next controller was lax ARTCC and was also confused re: call signs, and inquired as to what altitude we had been assigned. Responding that we had been cleared to climb VFR, he became irritated and again asked for our assigned altitude. We responded that we were climbing VFR to 17500'. He then reissued an IFR clearance via J65 blh and FL190. Center advised us that there had been 'a possible pilot deviation' and to call them. The subsequent call was made and the representative at lax ARTCC was concerned about whether we had been on an IFR flight plan. We told him the situation and he indicated that it sounded like '95% our fault (ATC),' and he would check tapes and call us back. Since all our pilots fly xyy and xxy interchangably, we occasionally respond with the incorrect call sign. In this case, however, I believe that after the initial call up we were aware of the confusion and making every attempt to correct it. We pull up 6 flight plans per day (mon-fri)--3 from vny, 3 from tus (abq ARTCC). We have attempted in the past to get discrete call signs (like the airlines) so that we can interchange equipment for flight #'south. This was denied because we are not 121 or 135 operators (we are part 91). As a result, we filed each flight under both aircraft #'south, but this also resulted in confusion and a request from abq ARTCC that we drop one set. Now we have one flight plan for each flight under xxy. When we fly xyy, we have to change call signs. I feel that flight #'south are the solutions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 PART 91 OPERATING ACFT WITH DIFFERENT N NUMBERS USE 1 FLT PLAN FILED WITH ARTCC. CONFUSION IN FLT PLAN IDENTIFIER.

Narrative: OUR CORP OPERATION FLIES A SHUTTLE TO AND FROM VNY AND TUCSON, AZ, 3 TIMES DAILY. OUR FLT PLAN IS STORED WITH LAX ARTCC UNDER THE CALL SIGN XXY, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR SMT X'S. WHEN WE USE OUR OTHER SMT Y, XYY, WE MAKE THE CHANGE IN CALL SIGN WITH VNY CLRNC WHEN WE PICK UP OUR CLRNC. IN THIS INCIDENT, WE WERE IN XYY. MY COPLT HAD RECEIVED THE CLRNC AND CHANGED THE CALL SIGN. SUBSEQUENTLY, BOTH GND AND LCL CTLR (WHO I BELIEVE WAS THE SAME PERSON) REFERRED TO US AS 'XXY,' WHICH WE CORRECTED BY USING THE PROPER CALL SIGN. WE WERE CLRED TO DEPART, AND UPON CONTACT WITH BUR DEP, THERE WAS FURTHER CONFUSION RE: OUR CALL SIGN. OUR CLRNC HAD INCLUDED A VFR CLB TO 6000' ON RWY HDG (340 DEGS). PASSING 5500' MY COPLT CALLED BUR WHO ISSUED 'INTERCEPT THE PALMDALE 218 DEG R' (NORMAL ROUTE). WE REQUESTED A CONTINUED CLB AND BUR STATED 'CLB TO ANY ALT VFR.' WE RESPONDED BY INDICATING WE WOULD CLB TO 17500'. WE WERE THEN SWITCHED TO ANOTHER BUR CTLR, WHO WAS ALSO CONFUSED AS TO OUR CALL SIGN. THE NEXT CTLR WAS LAX ARTCC AND WAS ALSO CONFUSED RE: CALL SIGNS, AND INQUIRED AS TO WHAT ALT WE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED. RESPONDING THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED TO CLB VFR, HE BECAME IRRITATED AND AGAIN ASKED FOR OUR ASSIGNED ALT. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE CLBING VFR TO 17500'. HE THEN REISSUED AN IFR CLRNC VIA J65 BLH AND FL190. CENTER ADVISED US THAT THERE HAD BEEN 'A POSSIBLE PLT DEVIATION' AND TO CALL THEM. THE SUBSEQUENT CALL WAS MADE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AT LAX ARTCC WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER WE HAD BEEN ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. WE TOLD HIM THE SITUATION AND HE INDICATED THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE '95% OUR FAULT (ATC),' AND HE WOULD CHK TAPES AND CALL US BACK. SINCE ALL OUR PLTS FLY XYY AND XXY INTERCHANGABLY, WE OCCASIONALLY RESPOND WITH THE INCORRECT CALL SIGN. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL CALL UP WE WERE AWARE OF THE CONFUSION AND MAKING EVERY ATTEMPT TO CORRECT IT. WE PULL UP 6 FLT PLANS PER DAY (MON-FRI)--3 FROM VNY, 3 FROM TUS (ABQ ARTCC). WE HAVE ATTEMPTED IN THE PAST TO GET DISCRETE CALL SIGNS (LIKE THE AIRLINES) SO THAT WE CAN INTERCHANGE EQUIP FOR FLT #'S. THIS WAS DENIED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT 121 OR 135 OPERATORS (WE ARE PART 91). AS A RESULT, WE FILED EACH FLT UNDER BOTH ACFT #'S, BUT THIS ALSO RESULTED IN CONFUSION AND A REQUEST FROM ABQ ARTCC THAT WE DROP ONE SET. NOW WE HAVE ONE FLT PLAN FOR EACH FLT UNDER XXY. WHEN WE FLY XYY, WE HAVE TO CHANGE CALL SIGNS. I FEEL THAT FLT #'S ARE THE SOLUTIONS.

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.