 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Crj-200 first officer reported company dispatched flight with duplicate aircraft identification creating ATC automation error.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1678207 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201908 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZAU.ARTCC |
| State Reference | IL |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200) |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Our flight was originally dispatched with an FAA call sign aircraft X. During taxi out; we encountered a maintenance problem that required a return-to-gate. A new aircraft was assigned to us. When we were re-dispatched; our call sign was aircraft Y. The flight proceeded normally until cleveland center transferred us to chicago center near the lfd VOR/DME. Chicago informed us that another aircraft Y was also on his frequency and that he had received no flight plan information for our target. The controller assigned us a new call sign; [similar to aircraft Y]; and then gathered the basic flight plan information he needed. The cause of this event appears to be the dispatching of two flights using the same call sign; without the use of a differentiating FAA call sign; between the same two airports; operating at the same time. Dispatch and ATC should work together to identify call sign conflicts. Eram (en route automation modernization) should also be able to more proactively identify call signs that are duplicate between more than one center (e.g.; when aircraft Y is filed out of ZOB; and [also] filed out of ZAU; eram at both centers should not process the second flight plan until the call sign duplicate is eliminated).
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CRJ-200 First Officer reported Company dispatched flight with duplicate aircraft ID creating ATC automation error.
Narrative: Our flight was originally dispatched with an FAA call sign Aircraft X. During taxi out; we encountered a maintenance problem that required a return-to-gate. A new aircraft was assigned to us. When we were re-dispatched; our call sign was Aircraft Y. The flight proceeded normally until Cleveland Center transferred us to Chicago Center near the LFD VOR/DME. Chicago informed us that another Aircraft Y was also on his frequency and that he had received no flight plan information for our target. The controller assigned us a new call sign; [similar to Aircraft Y]; and then gathered the basic flight plan information he needed. The cause of this event appears to be the dispatching of two flights using the same call sign; without the use of a differentiating FAA call sign; between the same two airports; operating at the same time. Dispatch and ATC should work together to identify call sign conflicts. ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization) should also be able to more proactively identify call signs that are duplicate between more than one Center (e.g.; when Aircraft Y is filed out of ZOB; and [also] filed out of ZAU; ERAM at both Centers should not process the second flight plan until the call sign duplicate is eliminated).
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.