Altitude deviation altitude overshot in climb.

Attributes
ACN	202068
Time
Date	199202
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : mrt airport : nrt
State Reference	FO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 9000 msl bound upper : 9700
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 4 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	departure other departure sid : sid enroute : other oceanic enroute airway : nrt
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 88 flight time total : 17150 flight time type : 480
ASRS Report	202068
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	202071
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : overshoot non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Our flight, with the first officer flying, was cleared for a papas 1 departure from narita airport (tokyo) and cleared to FL310. During climb out tokyo control advised crossing traffic at 10000 ft and 10 mi, then advised clear of traffic and shortly after advised of a second aircraft at 10000 ft and 10 mi. We were approximately 9700 ft when tokyo control cleared us to climb to FL310 (already cleared) advised clear of traffic and stated the we were only cleared to 9000 ft. We had read back the TAS but didn't acknowledge any altitude restriction because we didn't receive one. The controller was hard to understand but he didn't get an acknowledgement of an altitude restriction. Contributing factors: the controller's accent, not receiving (hearing) the alleged restriction, and not questioning our clearance with aircraft at 10000 ft. This problem could have been avoided by the controller issuing a restriction when he didn't hear us accept a restriction while acknowledging traffic. He could have also called us when we went through 9000 ft if he thought that was our cleared altitude. We should have questioned our clearance. At busy airports like narita and O'hare etc, controllers don't get readbacks and still assume a clearance has been received.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV ALT OVERSHOT IN CLB.

Narrative: OUR FLT, WITH THE FO FLYING, WAS CLRED FOR A PAPAS 1 DEP FROM NARITA ARPT (TOKYO) AND CLRED TO FL310. DURING CLBOUT TOKYO CTL ADVISED XING TFC AT 10000 FT AND 10 MI, THEN ADVISED CLR OF TFC AND SHORTLY AFTER ADVISED OF A SECOND ACFT AT 10000 FT AND 10 MI. WE WERE APPROX 9700 FT WHEN TOKYO CTL CLRED US TO CLB TO FL310 (ALREADY CLRED) ADVISED CLR OF TFC AND STATED THE WE WERE ONLY CLRED TO 9000 FT. WE HAD READ BACK THE TAS BUT DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE ANY ALT RESTRICTION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ONE. THE CTLR WAS HARD TO UNDERSTAND BUT HE DIDN'T GET AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AN ALT RESTRICTION. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: THE CTLR'S ACCENT, NOT RECEIVING (HEARING) THE ALLEGED RESTRICTION, AND NOT QUESTIONING OUR CLRNC WITH ACFT AT 10000 FT. THIS PROBLEM COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY THE CTLR ISSUING A RESTRICTION WHEN HE DIDN'T HEAR US ACCEPT A RESTRICTION WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING TFC. HE COULD HAVE ALSO CALLED US WHEN WE WENT THROUGH 9000 FT IF HE THOUGHT THAT WAS OUR CLRED ALT. WE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED OUR CLRNC. AT BUSY ARPTS LIKE NARITA AND O'HARE ETC, CTLRS DON'T GET READBACKS AND STILL ASSUME A CLRNC HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

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.