Narrative:

During descent upon arriving in the cle terminal area west of wakem intersection, we were told to maintain 14,000'. After leveling off at 14,000' we were told by ZOB to descend and maintain 10,000'. After acknowledging receipt of the 10,000' clearance, we were then told to descend and maintain 11,000'. I then went off the #1 communication to pick up the current ATIS at cle, for a WX and runway update. Upon getting the ATIS (active runway 23L snow and ice on runway, wind 300 degree/20 G 34), I then went back on communication #1. The captain had now been handed off to cle approach, he informed me that approach control wanted to know our intentions as the preferred runway for wind conditions (28) was closed for another half hour. While we were discussing this as a crew for a short time, approach control kept asking us what our intentions were. This was a distraction. The captain then told approach control we would like to hold. We were then issued holding instructions, to hold southeast at wakem intersection as published. Although we had already slowed we were approaching wakem intersection quite quickly. I looked at the cle area map and noticed that the only published holding at wakem was southwest, not southeast. I then mentioned this to the captain, and he agreed and tried to get clarification from cle approach control. The frequency, however, was very congested with advisories and requests for runway operating times due to wind and snow. We then heard the controller issue holding to another aircraft at wakem intersection. He again gave what appeared to be incorrect instructions, 'hold southeast of waken', he then corrected himself and said, 'hold southwest of waken as published'. This was a correct clearance with regard to the published holding at wakem on our area map. We then figured that our holding clearance to hold as published on the southeast side of waken was really meant to hold on the southwest side of wakem as published. So we entered holding on the southwest side of wakem as published at 11,000', our last assigned altitude. The captain then tried to call approach control to advise entering holding with time and altitude. Again the frequency was very congested. In a few minutes I managed to get in a quick request for 10 mi legs for holding. This was approved. We continued to hold at waken, during this time the captain was busy talking with company operations and dispatch at cleveland with regard to runway operating times and a possible diversion to cmh. We then discussed as a crew, going to cmh to refuel as we didn't have sufficient fuel to hold until runway 28 at cle would open. We had been holding now at waken for about 10 mins when approach control asked us what our altitude was. I replied 11,000'. The controller then said to turn left immediately and descend to 10,000'. We complied. While we were descending to 10,000' and clear of any traffic conflict, the controller stated we had been issued a 10,000' clearance by ZOB. I explained we had initially been given a 10,000' clearance by center, then revised to 11,000'. Approach control then said to turn right and reenter holding at waken, we complied. I then asked the controller for a phone number we could call on the ground for further discussion. He would not give me a number at that time, and instead told me to standby while he 'checks this out'. A little later I again asked for a phone number. He would not give me one, and instead kept asking questions about our clearance to 11,000'. I feel this was not professional on his part and not the time to discuss a previous clearance. At this point we were very busy and needed to concentrate on flying the holding pattern at wakem, while the captain received dispatch clearance to divert to cmh. Finally the controller gave me a phone number for the ZOB. The captain then told approach control we needed to divert to cmh. We flew to cmh, refueled and returned to cle without further complications. Concluding points to be emphasized. 1) incorrect holding instructions given for wakem. 2) if 11,000' was not the altitude cle approach control wanted us at why did he not say something sooner?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG HOLDING NEAR CLE WHILE AWAITING RWY TO OPEN HAS TRAFFIC CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT. CTLR QUESTIONED THAT THEY WERE CLEARED TO 11,000' WHEN HE THOUGHT THEY WERE AT 10,000'.

Narrative: DURING DSCNT UPON ARRIVING IN THE CLE TERMINAL AREA W OF WAKEM INTXN, WE WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN 14,000'. AFTER LEVELING OFF AT 14,000' WE WERE TOLD BY ZOB TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 10,000'. AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE 10,000' CLRNC, WE WERE THEN TOLD TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 11,000'. I THEN WENT OFF THE #1 COM TO PICK UP THE CURRENT ATIS AT CLE, FOR A WX AND RWY UPDATE. UPON GETTING THE ATIS (ACTIVE RWY 23L SNOW AND ICE ON RWY, WIND 300 DEG/20 G 34), I THEN WENT BACK ON COM #1. THE CAPT HAD NOW BEEN HANDED OFF TO CLE APCH, HE INFORMED ME THAT APCH CTL WANTED TO KNOW OUR INTENTIONS AS THE PREFERRED RWY FOR WIND CONDITIONS (28) WAS CLOSED FOR ANOTHER HALF HOUR. WHILE WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS AS A CREW FOR A SHORT TIME, APCH CTL KEPT ASKING US WHAT OUR INTENTIONS WERE. THIS WAS A DISTR. THE CAPT THEN TOLD APCH CTL WE WOULD LIKE TO HOLD. WE WERE THEN ISSUED HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS, TO HOLD SE AT WAKEM INTXN AS PUBLISHED. ALTHOUGH WE HAD ALREADY SLOWED WE WERE APCHING WAKEM INTXN QUITE QUICKLY. I LOOKED AT THE CLE AREA MAP AND NOTICED THAT THE ONLY PUBLISHED HOLDING AT WAKEM WAS SW, NOT SE. I THEN MENTIONED THIS TO THE CAPT, AND HE AGREED AND TRIED TO GET CLARIFICATION FROM CLE APCH CTL. THE FREQ, HOWEVER, WAS VERY CONGESTED WITH ADVISORIES AND REQUESTS FOR RWY OPERATING TIMES DUE TO WIND AND SNOW. WE THEN HEARD THE CTLR ISSUE HOLDING TO ANOTHER ACFT AT WAKEM INTXN. HE AGAIN GAVE WHAT APPEARED TO BE INCORRECT INSTRUCTIONS, 'HOLD SE OF WAKEN', HE THEN CORRECTED HIMSELF AND SAID, 'HOLD SW OF WAKEN AS PUBLISHED'. THIS WAS A CORRECT CLRNC WITH REGARD TO THE PUBLISHED HOLDING AT WAKEM ON OUR AREA MAP. WE THEN FIGURED THAT OUR HOLDING CLRNC TO HOLD AS PUBLISHED ON THE SE SIDE OF WAKEN WAS REALLY MEANT TO HOLD ON THE SW SIDE OF WAKEM AS PUBLISHED. SO WE ENTERED HOLDING ON THE SW SIDE OF WAKEM AS PUBLISHED AT 11,000', OUR LAST ASSIGNED ALT. THE CAPT THEN TRIED TO CALL APCH CTL TO ADVISE ENTERING HOLDING WITH TIME AND ALT. AGAIN THE FREQ WAS VERY CONGESTED. IN A FEW MINUTES I MANAGED TO GET IN A QUICK REQUEST FOR 10 MI LEGS FOR HOLDING. THIS WAS APPROVED. WE CONTINUED TO HOLD AT WAKEN, DURING THIS TIME THE CAPT WAS BUSY TALKING WITH COMPANY OPERATIONS AND DISPATCH AT CLEVELAND WITH REGARD TO RWY OPERATING TIMES AND A POSSIBLE DIVERSION TO CMH. WE THEN DISCUSSED AS A CREW, GOING TO CMH TO REFUEL AS WE DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT FUEL TO HOLD UNTIL RWY 28 AT CLE WOULD OPEN. WE HAD BEEN HOLDING NOW AT WAKEN FOR ABOUT 10 MINS WHEN APCH CTL ASKED US WHAT OUR ALT WAS. I REPLIED 11,000'. THE CTLR THEN SAID TO TURN LEFT IMMEDIATELY AND DSND TO 10,000'. WE COMPLIED. WHILE WE WERE DESCENDING TO 10,000' AND CLEAR OF ANY TFC CONFLICT, THE CTLR STATED WE HAD BEEN ISSUED A 10,000' CLRNC BY ZOB. I EXPLAINED WE HAD INITIALLY BEEN GIVEN A 10,000' CLRNC BY CENTER, THEN REVISED TO 11,000'. APCH CTL THEN SAID TO TURN RIGHT AND REENTER HOLDING AT WAKEN, WE COMPLIED. I THEN ASKED THE CTLR FOR A PHONE NUMBER WE COULD CALL ON THE GND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. HE WOULD NOT GIVE ME A NUMBER AT THAT TIME, AND INSTEAD TOLD ME TO STANDBY WHILE HE 'CHECKS THIS OUT'. A LITTLE LATER I AGAIN ASKED FOR A PHONE NUMBER. HE WOULD NOT GIVE ME ONE, AND INSTEAD KEPT ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR CLRNC TO 11,000'. I FEEL THIS WAS NOT PROFESSIONAL ON HIS PART AND NOT THE TIME TO DISCUSS A PREVIOUS CLRNC. AT THIS POINT WE WERE VERY BUSY AND NEEDED TO CONCENTRATE ON FLYING THE HOLDING PATTERN AT WAKEM, WHILE THE CAPT RECEIVED DISPATCH CLRNC TO DIVERT TO CMH. FINALLY THE CTLR GAVE ME A PHONE NUMBER FOR THE ZOB. THE CAPT THEN TOLD APCH CTL WE NEEDED TO DIVERT TO CMH. WE FLEW TO CMH, REFUELED AND RETURNED TO CLE WITHOUT FURTHER COMPLICATIONS. CONCLUDING POINTS TO BE EMPHASIZED. 1) INCORRECT HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN FOR WAKEM. 2) IF 11,000' WAS NOT THE ALT CLE APCH CTL WANTED US AT WHY DID HE NOT SAY SOMETHING SOONER?

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.