Narrative:

A recent update of information prompts me to file this amendment to the incident of jan/thu/90 concerning air carrier X dfw-ont. The area of question is our acceptance of someone else's clearance and frequency change during climbout of dfw. This was after being switched over to center and we had received clearance to FL210 because of traffic at FL220. Traffic was pointed out at 10 O'clock and we saw someone in that area. There was also an air carrier xy on the frequency and he was given a frequency change and I believe clearance to FL230 to which we both responded. When we checked in on the new frequency the controller was not able to understand because more than one transmission was made at the same time. The controller then asked if air carrier X checked in, to which we replied and again checked in climbing through FL197 to FL210 and the controller cleared us to continue our climb to FL310 with no questions asked. Somewhere during this time we were later told we had a traffic conflict with an MTR at FL220 going southbound. We had seen an aircraft cross in front going from our right to left, but he appeared approximately 5 mi in front of us, and no evasive action was taken nor needed by either aircraft. Light transport is likely, that with the similar call signs, we took a frequency change meant for air carrier xy, but it seems as though we never violated any altitude clrncs assigned our flight. ATC never mentioned a problem and seemed to be waiting for us when we checked in on the new frequency. Our first learning of the conflict was a day later and thus took some time to recreate the event and refresh our minds as to what had occurred. Supplemental information from acn 133110: as we reflected upon the events of that flight, two thoughts came to mind: 1) we observed the previously called traffic, a jet trainer, which was 3-4 mi ahead, apparently in a descent. 2) we recalled that there was an air carrier Y, a similar call sign, on our frequency.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR TOOK CLRNC MEANT FOR ANOTHER ACFT WITH SIMILAR CALL SIGN AND CLIMBED THROUGH OCCUPIED ALT.

Narrative: A RECENT UPDATE OF INFO PROMPTS ME TO FILE THIS AMENDMENT TO THE INCIDENT OF JAN/THU/90 CONCERNING ACR X DFW-ONT. THE AREA OF QUESTION IS OUR ACCEPTANCE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S CLRNC AND FREQ CHANGE DURING CLIMBOUT OF DFW. THIS WAS AFTER BEING SWITCHED OVER TO CENTER AND WE HAD RECEIVED CLRNC TO FL210 BECAUSE OF TFC AT FL220. TFC WAS POINTED OUT AT 10 O'CLOCK AND WE SAW SOMEONE IN THAT AREA. THERE WAS ALSO AN ACR XY ON THE FREQ AND HE WAS GIVEN A FREQ CHANGE AND I BELIEVE CLRNC TO FL230 TO WHICH WE BOTH RESPONDED. WHEN WE CHECKED IN ON THE NEW FREQ THE CTLR WAS NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE MORE THAN ONE XMISSION WAS MADE AT THE SAME TIME. THE CTLR THEN ASKED IF ACR X CHECKED IN, TO WHICH WE REPLIED AND AGAIN CHECKED IN CLIMBING THROUGH FL197 TO FL210 AND THE CTLR CLRED US TO CONTINUE OUR CLIMB TO FL310 WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED. SOMEWHERE DURING THIS TIME WE WERE LATER TOLD WE HAD A TFC CONFLICT WITH AN MTR AT FL220 GOING SBND. WE HAD SEEN AN ACFT CROSS IN FRONT GOING FROM OUR RIGHT TO LEFT, BUT HE APPEARED APPROX 5 MI IN FRONT OF US, AND NO EVASIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN NOR NEEDED BY EITHER ACFT. LTT IS LIKELY, THAT WITH THE SIMILAR CALL SIGNS, WE TOOK A FREQ CHANGE MEANT FOR ACR XY, BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH WE NEVER VIOLATED ANY ALT CLRNCS ASSIGNED OUR FLT. ATC NEVER MENTIONED A PROBLEM AND SEEMED TO BE WAITING FOR US WHEN WE CHECKED IN ON THE NEW FREQ. OUR FIRST LEARNING OF THE CONFLICT WAS A DAY LATER AND THUS TOOK SOME TIME TO RECREATE THE EVENT AND REFRESH OUR MINDS AS TO WHAT HAD OCCURRED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 133110: AS WE REFLECTED UPON THE EVENTS OF THAT FLT, TWO THOUGHTS CAME TO MIND: 1) WE OBSERVED THE PREVIOUSLY CALLED TFC, A JET TRAINER, WHICH WAS 3-4 MI AHEAD, APPARENTLY IN A DSCNT. 2) WE RECALLED THAT THERE WAS AN ACR Y, A SIMILAR CALL SIGN, ON OUR FREQ.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.