Narrative:

Our call sign was company abcd (X). We were being followed by company abce (Y). I do not know their destination but ours was indianapolis. We were approaching our top of descent point so we soon would need a lower altitude. Center gave a clearance for what sounded like company abce to descend to FL240. Company abce responded to the clearance and started down, reporting out of FL330. A few mins later (about 2 mins) center asked company abce for his altitude. He reported out of FL320. Center said 'negative, negative' return to your previously assigned altitude of FL330. Then he said that he had cleared us (company abcd) for the descent. I told the controller that we also were confused by who actually the clearance was for. This confusion nearly created a very bad situation. I have brought to the attention, on numerous occasions, of company management, the dangers of having the call signs of so many aircraft so similar that all are departing or arriving at nearly the same time, from the same place. The described incident is similar to other mistakes I have experienced or seen occurring to others. It seems that very little has been done since the call signs remain so similar. You can tell that controllers and pilots are upset at the confusion it creates. The situation needs to be corrected before a real emergency occurs. I know that I am not alone in voicing this problem to our management. It seems that the person deciding call signs or flight numbers does not understand the seriousness and danger of the problem. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he has discussed this situation with the assistant chief pilot who is his direct boss who indicated that the company is aware of the problem and agreed it is getting worse. Scheduling is working on the problem and they hope for some change. Reporter states he has not seen any change however. He wonders if there is something which makes the job easier for scheduling to identify flts with numbers in close sequence. This may be true but he notes that it makes both controller and flight crew jobs more difficult. Reporter stated that aircraft Y flight crew filed a report but he has heard nothing further from company or FAA. Analyst recommended use of the hotline.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-500 FLC HAS PROB WHEN COMPANY ACFT WITH SIMILAR SOUNDING A/N RESPONDS TO CLRNC WHICH WAS MEANT FOR RPTR ACFT.

Narrative: OUR CALL SIGN WAS COMPANY ABCD (X). WE WERE BEING FOLLOWED BY COMPANY ABCE (Y). I DO NOT KNOW THEIR DEST BUT OURS WAS INDIANAPOLIS. WE WERE APCHING OUR TOP OF DSCNT POINT SO WE SOON WOULD NEED A LOWER ALT. CTR GAVE A CLRNC FOR WHAT SOUNDED LIKE COMPANY ABCE TO DSND TO FL240. COMPANY ABCE RESPONDED TO THE CLRNC AND STARTED DOWN, RPTING OUT OF FL330. A FEW MINS LATER (ABOUT 2 MINS) CTR ASKED COMPANY ABCE FOR HIS ALT. HE RPTED OUT OF FL320. CTR SAID 'NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE' RETURN TO YOUR PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED ALT OF FL330. THEN HE SAID THAT HE HAD CLRED US (COMPANY ABCD) FOR THE DSCNT. I TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE ALSO WERE CONFUSED BY WHO ACTUALLY THE CLRNC WAS FOR. THIS CONFUSION NEARLY CREATED A VERY BAD SIT. I HAVE BROUGHT TO THE ATTN, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, OF COMPANY MGMNT, THE DANGERS OF HAVING THE CALL SIGNS OF SO MANY ACFT SO SIMILAR THAT ALL ARE DEPARTING OR ARRIVING AT NEARLY THE SAME TIME, FROM THE SAME PLACE. THE DESCRIBED INCIDENT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER MISTAKES I HAVE EXPERIENCED OR SEEN OCCURRING TO OTHERS. IT SEEMS THAT VERY LITTLE HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THE CALL SIGNS REMAIN SO SIMILAR. YOU CAN TELL THAT CTLRS AND PLTS ARE UPSET AT THE CONFUSION IT CREATES. THE SIT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE A REAL EMER OCCURS. I KNOW THAT I AM NOT ALONE IN VOICING THIS PROB TO OUR MGMNT. IT SEEMS THAT THE PERSON DECIDING CALL SIGNS OR FLT NUMBERS DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS AND DANGER OF THE PROB. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS SIT WITH THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT WHO IS HIS DIRECT BOSS WHO INDICATED THAT THE COMPANY IS AWARE OF THE PROB AND AGREED IT IS GETTING WORSE. SCHEDULING IS WORKING ON THE PROB AND THEY HOPE FOR SOME CHANGE. RPTR STATES HE HAS NOT SEEN ANY CHANGE HOWEVER. HE WONDERS IF THERE IS SOMETHING WHICH MAKES THE JOB EASIER FOR SCHEDULING TO IDENT FLTS WITH NUMBERS IN CLOSE SEQUENCE. THIS MAY BE TRUE BUT HE NOTES THAT IT MAKES BOTH CTLR AND FLC JOBS MORE DIFFICULT. RPTR STATED THAT ACFT Y FLC FILED A RPT BUT HE HAS HEARD NOTHING FURTHER FROM COMPANY OR FAA. ANALYST RECOMMENDED USE OF THE HOTLINE.

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.