Crew questioned by traffic controller about altitude. Crew believed they were at assigned altitude. ...

Attributes
ACN	442415
Time
Date	199907
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : abq.airport
State Reference	NM
Altitude	msl bound lower : 8000 msl bound upper : 10000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : abq.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other other vortac
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 14500 flight time type : 7000
ASRS Report	442415
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : atp pilot : private pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 165 flight time total : 5500 flight time type : 1500
ASRS Report	441840
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude altitude deviation : undershoot non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : became reoriented
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

I was on company frequency, while level at 10000 ft. As I returned to approach frequency, I was informed by my first officer that we had been cleared to 8000 ft. After we were level at 8000 ft for approximately 5 mins, the approach controller queried our altitude. I stated 'level 8000 ft.' she said 'I thought you were still given 10000 ft but 8000 ft is okay. Obviously there was no conflict. My first officer believes whole-heartedly that he repeated 8000 ft back to her. The approach and landing were completed without incident. As I understand it, the FAA is not requiring ATC to be responsible for incorrect readbacks, yet we bear all of the burden of correct hearing and readbacks with possibly very unpleasant and costly consequences. I believe that both flcs and ATC should still be jointly responsible for safe operations. Supplemental information from acn 441840: captain was off ATC frequency talking with company. We had been level at 15000 ft prior to further descent. Given initial descent to 10000 ft. Further instructions were, I believe, 'turn right heading 100 degrees, descend to 8000 ft.' I acknowledged and changed heading and altitude bugs as appropriate. At some point we were diverted to turn back to 080 degrees. After level at 8000 ft for at least 2 mins, approach called with, 'say altitude.' we answered '8000 ft.' approach said, 'well, you were cleared to 10000 ft but that's ok, I guess.' I saw traffic at 10 mi and ahead, visually and on TCASII, no conflict potential at all. I truly believe I read back the 8000 ft altitude, but can't swear to it. A possible explanation is that on our first 080 degree heading assignment I mistakenly entered 8000 ft. We had been at 8000 ft for at least 2 mins. There was relatively little traffic, and apparently this discrepancy wasn't noticed by ATC either. This was one of the few times both pilots were not monitoring ATC. It is apparent that at virtually any other time something like this would be caught.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CREW QUESTIONED BY TFC CTLR ABOUT ALT. CREW BELIEVED THEY WERE AT ASSIGNED ALT. CTLR THOUGHT THEY WERE ASSIGNED ANOTHER. NO TFC CONFLICT. CTLR ACCEPTED FLOWN ALT.

Narrative: I WAS ON COMPANY FREQ, WHILE LEVEL AT 10000 FT. AS I RETURNED TO APCH FREQ, I WAS INFORMED BY MY FO THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED TO 8000 FT. AFTER WE WERE LEVEL AT 8000 FT FOR APPROX 5 MINS, THE APCH CTLR QUERIED OUR ALT. I STATED 'LEVEL 8000 FT.' SHE SAID 'I THOUGHT YOU WERE STILL GIVEN 10000 FT BUT 8000 FT IS OKAY. OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. MY FO BELIEVES WHOLE-HEARTEDLY THAT HE REPEATED 8000 FT BACK TO HER. THE APCH AND LNDG WERE COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE FAA IS NOT REQUIRING ATC TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INCORRECT READBACKS, YET WE BEAR ALL OF THE BURDEN OF CORRECT HEARING AND READBACKS WITH POSSIBLY VERY UNPLEASANT AND COSTLY CONSEQUENCES. I BELIEVE THAT BOTH FLCS AND ATC SHOULD STILL BE JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFE OPS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 441840: CAPT WAS OFF ATC FREQ TALKING WITH COMPANY. WE HAD BEEN LEVEL AT 15000 FT PRIOR TO FURTHER DSCNT. GIVEN INITIAL DSCNT TO 10000 FT. FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS WERE, I BELIEVE, 'TURN R HDG 100 DEGS, DSND TO 8000 FT.' I ACKNOWLEDGED AND CHANGED HEADING AND ALT BUGS AS APPROPRIATE. AT SOME POINT WE WERE DIVERTED TO TURN BACK TO 080 DEGS. AFTER LEVEL AT 8000 FT FOR AT LEAST 2 MINS, APCH CALLED WITH, 'SAY ALT.' WE ANSWERED '8000 FT.' APCH SAID, 'WELL, YOU WERE CLRED TO 10000 FT BUT THAT'S OK, I GUESS.' I SAW TFC AT 10 MI AND AHEAD, VISUALLY AND ON TCASII, NO CONFLICT POTENTIAL AT ALL. I TRULY BELIEVE I READ BACK THE 8000 FT ALT, BUT CAN'T SWEAR TO IT. A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS THAT ON OUR FIRST 080 DEG HDG ASSIGNMENT I MISTAKENLY ENTERED 8000 FT. WE HAD BEEN AT 8000 FT FOR AT LEAST 2 MINS. THERE WAS RELATIVELY LITTLE TFC, AND APPARENTLY THIS DISCREPANCY WASN'T NOTICED BY ATC EITHER. THIS WAS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES BOTH PLTS WERE NOT MONITORING ATC. IT IS APPARENT THAT AT VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD BE CAUGHT.

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.

Crew questioned by traffic controller about altitude. Crew believed they were at assigned altitude. Controller thought they were assigned another. No traffic conflict. Controller accepted flown altitude.