Narrative:

The problem arose after calling center and asking for a lower altitude. Abq center then advised us that they had been trying to contact us for the last 80 NM. We had flown out of abq's airspace (131.15) and was told that we never responded to the controller's attempts to hand us off to ZLA center. We both had been monitoring the radio, but couldn't understand how we could have missed his repeated attempts to reach us. Abq center then handed us off to ZLA center (133.2). Upon calling ZLA center at FL350, the controller cleared us to FL240. I responded, 'cleared to FL240, leaving FL350, flight number.' ZLA then asked if that had been our first call to that center. I responded, 'yes.' he then asked what frequency we had come from. I responded 'abq, 131.15.' we were then handed off to another ZLA sector. Checking in out of about FL270, the controller cleared us to lax via the civet profile descent. I acknowledged our full clearance. He then said, 'I need to read a statement and advise when ready.' I responded, 'flight number, go ahead.' 'flight number you are in possible altitude deviation the time of occurrence XX20Z.' he then gave a telephone number to call. The time of his statement was XX31Z. At XX20Z we had been level at our last assigned altitude of FL350. This statement made no sense at the time. We were at our last assigned altitude! On the ground, the captain called the phone number given to us. The person on the other end was unclr himself on details and asked the captain to call in the next morning. The captain did call the next morning and was told that we had come within 3.9 mi of another aircraft. Also, he stated that the abq tapes were being transported to los angeles for review. Details were still unclr of the event. In the cockpit we never received a TA from TCASII. Even as I write this, a lot of things are unclr about what occurred. How can an 'altitude deviation' statement be issued with staying at your last assigned altitude? At that point we should have been treated as a 'lost communication' aircraft. I sincerely believe that we did not miss any transmissions to us by abq. Since for the last 3 hours (mia-lax), we had not missed any previous handoffs to other sectors and centers. But, anything is possible. It was a long and late flight. From now on I'll question the lack of a handoff by an ATC facility or the lack of talk on any frequency for a period of time. I never believed that lack of a handoff would be grounds for review as an altitude deviation. I hope ATC can explain it! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states the incident was investigated because when captain made a call to facility, nobody knew anything about incident. Called next morning and very little was known, but captain was told tapes were being sent to lax. Flight crew then involved their union. It seems the abq center on the handoff received no response but was sure they had. The tapes proved they had not. They made no repeated attempts to contact, merely said 'good night.' meanwhile another carrier was given a handoff within lax center but was assigned the wrong frequency. Both aircraft were out of contact at the same time. Thus the problem. The snitch caught it. Major aspect was that ZLA had a perfect record at that point and felt this crew had ruined it. They were more or less protecting themselves by putting the statement of violation on record. Flight crew exonerated completely.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC OUT OF RADIO CONTACT FOR A BRIEF TIME, ACCUSED OF ALTDEV.

Narrative: THE PROBLEM AROSE AFTER CALLING CENTER AND ASKING FOR A LOWER ALT. ABQ CENTER THEN ADVISED US THAT THEY HAD BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT US FOR THE LAST 80 NM. WE HAD FLOWN OUT OF ABQ'S AIRSPACE (131.15) AND WAS TOLD THAT WE NEVER RESPONDED TO THE CTLR'S ATTEMPTS TO HAND US OFF TO ZLA CENTER. WE BOTH HAD BEEN MONITORING THE RADIO, BUT COULDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD HAVE MISSED HIS REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO REACH US. ABQ CENTER THEN HANDED US OFF TO ZLA CENTER (133.2). UPON CALLING ZLA CENTER AT FL350, THE CTLR CLRED US TO FL240. I RESPONDED, 'CLRED TO FL240, LEAVING FL350, FLT NUMBER.' ZLA THEN ASKED IF THAT HAD BEEN OUR FIRST CALL TO THAT CENTER. I RESPONDED, 'YES.' HE THEN ASKED WHAT FREQ WE HAD COME FROM. I RESPONDED 'ABQ, 131.15.' WE WERE THEN HANDED OFF TO ANOTHER ZLA SECTOR. CHKING IN OUT OF ABOUT FL270, THE CTLR CLRED US TO LAX VIA THE CIVET PROFILE DSCNT. I ACKNOWLEDGED OUR FULL CLRNC. HE THEN SAID, 'I NEED TO READ A STATEMENT AND ADVISE WHEN READY.' I RESPONDED, 'FLT NUMBER, GO AHEAD.' 'FLT NUMBER YOU ARE IN POSSIBLE ALTDEV THE TIME OF OCCURRENCE XX20Z.' HE THEN GAVE A TELEPHONE NUMBER TO CALL. THE TIME OF HIS STATEMENT WAS XX31Z. AT XX20Z WE HAD BEEN LEVEL AT OUR LAST ASSIGNED ALT OF FL350. THIS STATEMENT MADE NO SENSE AT THE TIME. WE WERE AT OUR LAST ASSIGNED ALT! ON THE GND, THE CAPT CALLED THE PHONE NUMBER GIVEN TO US. THE PERSON ON THE OTHER END WAS UNCLR HIMSELF ON DETAILS AND ASKED THE CAPT TO CALL IN THE NEXT MORNING. THE CAPT DID CALL THE NEXT MORNING AND WAS TOLD THAT WE HAD COME WITHIN 3.9 MI OF ANOTHER ACFT. ALSO, HE STATED THAT THE ABQ TAPES WERE BEING TRANSPORTED TO LOS ANGELES FOR REVIEW. DETAILS WERE STILL UNCLR OF THE EVENT. IN THE COCKPIT WE NEVER RECEIVED A TA FROM TCASII. EVEN AS I WRITE THIS, A LOT OF THINGS ARE UNCLR ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED. HOW CAN AN 'ALTDEV' STATEMENT BE ISSUED WITH STAYING AT YOUR LAST ASSIGNED ALT? AT THAT POINT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A 'LOST COM' ACFT. I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT WE DID NOT MISS ANY TRANSMISSIONS TO US BY ABQ. SINCE FOR THE LAST 3 HRS (MIA-LAX), WE HAD NOT MISSED ANY PREVIOUS HDOFS TO OTHER SECTORS AND CENTERS. BUT, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. IT WAS A LONG AND LATE FLT. FROM NOW ON I'LL QUESTION THE LACK OF A HDOF BY AN ATC FACILITY OR THE LACK OF TALK ON ANY FREQ FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. I NEVER BELIEVED THAT LACK OF A HDOF WOULD BE GNDS FOR REVIEW AS AN ALTDEV. I HOPE ATC CAN EXPLAIN IT! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE INCIDENT WAS INVESTIGATED BECAUSE WHEN CAPT MADE A CALL TO FACILITY, NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT INCIDENT. CALLED NEXT MORNING AND VERY LITTLE WAS KNOWN, BUT CAPT WAS TOLD TAPES WERE BEING SENT TO LAX. FLC THEN INVOLVED THEIR UNION. IT SEEMS THE ABQ CENTER ON THE HDOF RECEIVED NO RESPONSE BUT WAS SURE THEY HAD. THE TAPES PROVED THEY HAD NOT. THEY MADE NO REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT, MERELY SAID 'GOOD NIGHT.' MEANWHILE ANOTHER CARRIER WAS GIVEN A HDOF WITHIN LAX CENTER BUT WAS ASSIGNED THE WRONG FREQ. BOTH ACFT WERE OUT OF CONTACT AT THE SAME TIME. THUS THE PROBLEM. THE SNITCH CAUGHT IT. MAJOR ASPECT WAS THAT ZLA HAD A PERFECT RECORD AT THAT POINT AND FELT THIS CREW HAD RUINED IT. THEY WERE MORE OR LESS PROTECTING THEMSELVES BY PUTTING THE STATEMENT OF VIOLATION ON RECORD. FLC EXONERATED COMPLETELY.

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.