Narrative:

Tracking the 235 degree right ib lga, expecting vectors for a left downwind to runway 22. Approach controller issued, 'air carrier X turn right to 130 degree.' I acknowledged with 'roger, air carrier X right turn to 130 degree.' there was no correction by ATC, however, this heading seemed inappropriate since this would be a heading toward jfk airspace. Moments later we heard from ATC, 'air carrier Y say heading.' air carrier Y replied, 'hgd X degrees.' ATC replied, 'negative! Turn now assigned to a xx heading!' then we heard, 'air carrier X what is your heading?' I replied, '130 degree assigned.' ATC said, 'negative! Turn right to 360 degree!' it appears to me that the controller mixed up the call signs, giving air carrier Y the air carrier X heading, and giving air carrier X the air carrier Y heading. The controller sounded under much stress and angered. Many airplanes, very busy. The captain and myself feel certain that we followed the ATC controller's instructions, but that he had mixed up the aircraft call signs by mistake. Both pilots and controllers need to alert themselves to similar sounding call signs. Supplemental information from acn 150624. Busy approach controller assigned, 'air carrier X fly heading 130 degree.' we acknowledged with call, '130 degree air carrier X.' after rollout on 130 degree heading, the controller asked our heading, told us to turn right to 360 degree, and that he did not assign us 130 degree. He then told air carrier Y to turn to a 130 degree heading, the aircraft, I believe, he had us momentarily confused with. The controller was very busy during our contact with him. It appeared that there was too much traffic within his area for him to control effectively. We later had to prompt him for a lower altitude and course change as we approached lga, as it seemed he was too preoccupied with other arrs. We observed other similar situations with other aircraft on that frequency. The controller was irritable and seemed to have more work than he could handle safely. Also, it appeared that no one was supervising or helping to relieve his workload. At the time of our initial heading change to 130 degree, the frequency was too congested to query the controller of the change. Our airline employs a strong crew concept to our operations and stresses specific radio calls, always with call sign, flight number, and a repeat of assigned instructions. The controller was so busy that he gave the wrong aircraft the wrong instructions, and didn't recognize our readback. This situation may have been avoided if the controller was not overworked, and if he was supervised directly to double check his actions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR TURNED ACR X WHEN HE MEANT TO TURN ACR Y. OPDEV.

Narrative: TRACKING THE 235 DEG R IB LGA, EXPECTING VECTORS FOR A L DOWNWIND TO RWY 22. APCH CTLR ISSUED, 'ACR X TURN R TO 130 DEG.' I ACKNOWLEDGED WITH 'ROGER, ACR X R TURN TO 130 DEG.' THERE WAS NO CORRECTION BY ATC, HOWEVER, THIS HDG SEEMED INAPPROPRIATE SINCE THIS WOULD BE A HDG TOWARD JFK AIRSPACE. MOMENTS LATER WE HEARD FROM ATC, 'ACR Y SAY HDG.' ACR Y REPLIED, 'HGD X DEGS.' ATC REPLIED, 'NEGATIVE! TURN NOW ASSIGNED TO A XX HDG!' THEN WE HEARD, 'ACR X WHAT IS YOUR HDG?' I REPLIED, '130 DEG ASSIGNED.' ATC SAID, 'NEGATIVE! TURN R TO 360 DEG!' IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE CTLR MIXED UP THE CALL SIGNS, GIVING ACR Y THE ACR X HDG, AND GIVING ACR X THE ACR Y HDG. THE CTLR SOUNDED UNDER MUCH STRESS AND ANGERED. MANY AIRPLANES, VERY BUSY. THE CAPT AND MYSELF FEEL CERTAIN THAT WE FOLLOWED THE ATC CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS, BUT THAT HE HAD MIXED UP THE ACFT CALL SIGNS BY MISTAKE. BOTH PLTS AND CTLRS NEED TO ALERT THEMSELVES TO SIMILAR SOUNDING CALL SIGNS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 150624. BUSY APCH CTLR ASSIGNED, 'ACR X FLY HDG 130 DEG.' WE ACKNOWLEDGED WITH CALL, '130 DEG ACR X.' AFTER ROLLOUT ON 130 DEG HDG, THE CTLR ASKED OUR HDG, TOLD US TO TURN R TO 360 DEG, AND THAT HE DID NOT ASSIGN US 130 DEG. HE THEN TOLD ACR Y TO TURN TO A 130 DEG HDG, THE ACFT, I BELIEVE, HE HAD US MOMENTARILY CONFUSED WITH. THE CTLR WAS VERY BUSY DURING OUR CONTACT WITH HIM. IT APPEARED THAT THERE WAS TOO MUCH TFC WITHIN HIS AREA FOR HIM TO CTL EFFECTIVELY. WE LATER HAD TO PROMPT HIM FOR A LOWER ALT AND COURSE CHANGE AS WE APCHED LGA, AS IT SEEMED HE WAS TOO PREOCCUPIED WITH OTHER ARRS. WE OBSERVED OTHER SIMILAR SITUATIONS WITH OTHER ACFT ON THAT FREQ. THE CTLR WAS IRRITABLE AND SEEMED TO HAVE MORE WORK THAN HE COULD HANDLE SAFELY. ALSO, IT APPEARED THAT NO ONE WAS SUPERVISING OR HELPING TO RELIEVE HIS WORKLOAD. AT THE TIME OF OUR INITIAL HDG CHANGE TO 130 DEG, THE FREQ WAS TOO CONGESTED TO QUERY THE CTLR OF THE CHANGE. OUR AIRLINE EMPLOYS A STRONG CREW CONCEPT TO OUR OPS AND STRESSES SPECIFIC RADIO CALLS, ALWAYS WITH CALL SIGN, FLT NUMBER, AND A REPEAT OF ASSIGNED INSTRUCTIONS. THE CTLR WAS SO BUSY THAT HE GAVE THE WRONG ACFT THE WRONG INSTRUCTIONS, AND DIDN'T RECOGNIZE OUR READBACK. THIS SITUATION MAY HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE CTLR WAS NOT OVERWORKED, AND IF HE WAS SUPERVISED DIRECTLY TO DOUBLE CHK HIS ACTIONS.

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.