Narrative:

During cruise clearance was given by ZID for descent from FL290 to FL230 north of tys. Clearance was acknowledged on ZID frequency 134.67, and then switched to ZTL frequency 125.92. We started descent and report to ZTL checking in, calling 'air carrier xx out of 23.9 for 230.' ZTL paused (confusion?), 'air carrier xx, climb to FL310.' we acknowledged and started climb back to FL310. We were now alerted--had somebody goofed? As we passed through 29.8, center called and said to stop at FL390, apologized, and cleared us direct chattanooga for a rome arrival, instead of macey arrival as previously cleared. We did not question initial clearance to FL230 because we had been held on the ground at day due to poor WX at atl, and assumed an early descent to accommodate stacking or holding in atl. Question in my mind after incident: 'were we cleared inadvertently to 230 rather than 330?' some safety breakdowns occurred. Improper phraseology, 'cleared to,' rather than 'climb to,' or 'descend to,' and readback by pilot in same phraseology. The canadian controllers use a technique which I feel is more positive. They will respond to a pilots acknowledgement of a clearance with the phrase 'that is correct,' which fortifies the pilot's understanding of the proper course of action on his part.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLRNC FOR DESCENT RECEIVED AND DESCENT BEGUN APPARENTLY IN ERROR OR WITH LACK OF FAC COORD.

Narrative: DURING CRUISE CLRNC WAS GIVEN BY ZID FOR DSCNT FROM FL290 TO FL230 N OF TYS. CLRNC WAS ACKNOWLEDGED ON ZID FREQ 134.67, AND THEN SWITCHED TO ZTL FREQ 125.92. WE STARTED DSCNT AND RPT TO ZTL CHKING IN, CALLING 'ACR XX OUT OF 23.9 FOR 230.' ZTL PAUSED (CONFUSION?), 'ACR XX, CLB TO FL310.' WE ACKNOWLEDGED AND STARTED CLB BACK TO FL310. WE WERE NOW ALERTED--HAD SOMEBODY GOOFED? AS WE PASSED THROUGH 29.8, CENTER CALLED AND SAID TO STOP AT FL390, APOLOGIZED, AND CLRED US DIRECT CHATTANOOGA FOR A ROME ARR, INSTEAD OF MACEY ARR AS PREVIOUSLY CLRED. WE DID NOT QUESTION INITIAL CLRNC TO FL230 BECAUSE WE HAD BEEN HELD ON THE GND AT DAY DUE TO POOR WX AT ATL, AND ASSUMED AN EARLY DSCNT TO ACCOMMODATE STACKING OR HOLDING IN ATL. QUESTION IN MY MIND AFTER INCIDENT: 'WERE WE CLRED INADVERTENTLY TO 230 RATHER THAN 330?' SOME SAFETY BREAKDOWNS OCCURRED. IMPROPER PHRASEOLOGY, 'CLRED TO,' RATHER THAN 'CLB TO,' OR 'DSND TO,' AND READBACK BY PLT IN SAME PHRASEOLOGY. THE CANADIAN CTLRS USE A TECHNIQUE WHICH I FEEL IS MORE POSITIVE. THEY WILL RESPOND TO A PLTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A CLRNC WITH THE PHRASE 'THAT IS CORRECT,' WHICH FORTIFIES THE PLT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION ON HIS PART.

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.