Narrative:

Upon departure from pou, our instructions from ny departure control were to proceed direct to pawling VOR, 55 degree radial to stuby, V487. Climb and maintain 5000 ft. At 5000 ft we were handed off to ZBW. We were directed by ZBW to climb to and maintain 10000 ft. In the vicinity of pawling VOR, we were climbing through 9000 ft at 1500 FPM climb rate when another aircraft questioned ZBW if the 'aircraft was leveling off at 9000 ft?' I am uncertain of center's response, but the conversation led me to believe we were possibly in conflict. I instructed the first officer to reduce the climb rate as the other aircraft reported a RA from his TCASII. At that time we were at 9600 ft leveling and then descending towards 9000 ft since all indications were that we were in conflict with the other aircraft. Boston then responded to the questioning aircraft that they were passing behind the aircraft in question. We were then cleared to a higher altitude (13000 ft, I think) and the other aircraft was given a phone number to contact after landing. About 3 mins later I too was given the same phone number and instructions to call. At my destination I placed my phone call. My conversation was with ZBW. We discussed the situation and the controller stated they had reviewed the tapes. He said he was a bit uncertain about my comments about 9000 ft. I explained the sequence of events related above. He then stated that the controller had assigned us both the same altitude. Since we were in IMC conditions, I could not determine the proximity of the conflict. Our TCASII was inoperative and written up on a previous mission as per our MEL. Had my TCASII been operating, perhaps I could have played a more active role in avoiding this conflict. Supplemental information from acn 327420: 2 aircraft were assigned the same altitude, 10000 ft. Contributing factors: TCASII of aircraft was MEL'ed and 2 aircraft cleared through one VOR at same rate of closure. When the captain switched off communication #1 and advised PF, the PF covered the communication. ZBW cleared us to 10000 ft. The PF read back, 'maintain 10000 ft.' the PF reset altitude alerter and advised PNF of new altitude by saying 'cleared to 10000 ft' and pointing to the altitude alerter. The captain acknowledged 'cleared to 10000 ft' and pointing to altitude alerter as he switched back to communication #1. ZBW then advised traffic 11 O'clock sebound 10000 ft. PNF advised roger IMC. At that time we should have requested or queried our assigned climb profile altitude.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 ACFT THAT WERE CONVERGING ON A VOR IN IMC, ASSIGNED THE SAME ALT. THE RPTING FLC OVERHEARD THE OTHER ACFT ASKING ATC IF ANOTHER ACFT WOULD BE LEVELING AT 9000 FT, AND RECOGNIZED THAT THE QUESTION WAS REGARDING THEIR ACFT. THEY ARRESTED THEIR CLB, AND LATER THROUGH FLT ATC REVIEW, LEARNED THAT BOTH ACFT HAD BEEN ASSIGNED THE SAME ALT.

Narrative: UPON DEP FROM POU, OUR INSTRUCTIONS FROM NY DEP CTL WERE TO PROCEED DIRECT TO PAWLING VOR, 55 DEG RADIAL TO STUBY, V487. CLB AND MAINTAIN 5000 FT. AT 5000 FT WE WERE HANDED OFF TO ZBW. WE WERE DIRECTED BY ZBW TO CLB TO AND MAINTAIN 10000 FT. IN THE VICINITY OF PAWLING VOR, WE WERE CLBING THROUGH 9000 FT AT 1500 FPM CLB RATE WHEN ANOTHER ACFT QUESTIONED ZBW IF THE 'ACFT WAS LEVELING OFF AT 9000 FT?' I AM UNCERTAIN OF CTR'S RESPONSE, BUT THE CONVERSATION LED ME TO BELIEVE WE WERE POSSIBLY IN CONFLICT. I INSTRUCTED THE FO TO REDUCE THE CLB RATE AS THE OTHER ACFT RPTED A RA FROM HIS TCASII. AT THAT TIME WE WERE AT 9600 FT LEVELING AND THEN DSNDING TOWARDS 9000 FT SINCE ALL INDICATIONS WERE THAT WE WERE IN CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ACFT. BOSTON THEN RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONING ACFT THAT THEY WERE PASSING BEHIND THE ACFT IN QUESTION. WE WERE THEN CLRED TO A HIGHER ALT (13000 FT, I THINK) AND THE OTHER ACFT WAS GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER TO CONTACT AFTER LNDG. ABOUT 3 MINS LATER I TOO WAS GIVEN THE SAME PHONE NUMBER AND INSTRUCTIONS TO CALL. AT MY DEST I PLACED MY PHONE CALL. MY CONVERSATION WAS WITH ZBW. WE DISCUSSED THE SIT AND THE CTLR STATED THEY HAD REVIEWED THE TAPES. HE SAID HE WAS A BIT UNCERTAIN ABOUT MY COMMENTS ABOUT 9000 FT. I EXPLAINED THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RELATED ABOVE. HE THEN STATED THAT THE CTLR HAD ASSIGNED US BOTH THE SAME ALT. SINCE WE WERE IN IMC CONDITIONS, I COULD NOT DETERMINE THE PROX OF THE CONFLICT. OUR TCASII WAS INOP AND WRITTEN UP ON A PREVIOUS MISSION AS PER OUR MEL. HAD MY TCASII BEEN OPERATING, PERHAPS I COULD HAVE PLAYED A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN AVOIDING THIS CONFLICT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 327420: 2 ACFT WERE ASSIGNED THE SAME ALT, 10000 FT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: TCASII OF ACFT WAS MEL'ED AND 2 ACFT CLRED THROUGH ONE VOR AT SAME RATE OF CLOSURE. WHEN THE CAPT SWITCHED OFF COM #1 AND ADVISED PF, THE PF COVERED THE COM. ZBW CLRED US TO 10000 FT. THE PF READ BACK, 'MAINTAIN 10000 FT.' THE PF RESET ALT ALERTER AND ADVISED PNF OF NEW ALT BY SAYING 'CLRED TO 10000 FT' AND POINTING TO THE ALT ALERTER. THE CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED 'CLRED TO 10000 FT' AND POINTING TO ALT ALERTER AS HE SWITCHED BACK TO COM #1. ZBW THEN ADVISED TFC 11 O'CLOCK SEBOUND 10000 FT. PNF ADVISED ROGER IMC. AT THAT TIME WE SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED OR QUERIED OUR ASSIGNED CLB PROFILE ALT.

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.