Narrative:

I was the captain of flight on jun/xa/00, dtw-stl. ZOB cleared us to FL310. Shortly thereafter, ZOB handed us off to ZAU. We heard a garbled center transmission with expedite through FL250, but were unsure of the call sign. Before we could query center, the controller stated 'expedite through FL250, over.' we read back the clearance and increased our rate of climb. Passing FL250 I noticed a TCASII target approaching from the south at a high rate of speed. The projected flight path of the target appeared to conflict with ours. As I knew it was not possible to change our rapid ascent into a descent without passing FL260 I instructed the first officer to again increase our rate of climb so as to pass through FL260 prior to our flight path intersecting the flight path of the other aircraft. I also instructed her that if necessary to avoid the oncoming aircraft we would turn south. We cleared the other aircraft by 300 ft vertically and 2 mi horizontally. Center then became busy attempting to resolve the problem and stated that someone had 'blown through' their altitude. He then asked us our altitude which was approximately FL270 climbing to FL310. He stated we had not been cleared to FL310. Prior to leaving the frequency I obtained the appropriate phone number to contact when we arrived stl. I contacted ZAU via telephone from stl, idented myself, and spoke with ATC supervisor. He attempted to locate the controller but was unable to. I explained the nature of the call. He informed me the ATC tapes were being reviewed as we spoke but the main question was 'where did we receive our clearance to FL310? He instructed me to call him back later. I called back several hours later and was informed the tapes had been reviewed. The end result appears to be lack of communication between ctrs. Prior to flight departing cleveland's airspace, chicago called cleveland via landline and asked them to restrict us to FL250. This was not accomplished. When we contacted chicago we told them we were climbing to FL310. For whatever reason, the controller failed to comprehend we had a clearance above FL250. According to supervisor, the chicago controller asked us to expedite 'to' FL250 not 'through' FL250. Supervisor advised me the situation would be handled in-house and the FAA would not be taking action against me or company. If our aircraft had not been equipped with TCASII and IMC conditions were present, the result could have been catastrophic. I believe the cause of this incident was failure of complete communication between ctrs and the chicago controller not comprehending our first transmission when we stated we were climbing to FL310.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CLBING B727 WITH CLRNC FROM ZOB TO FL310 HAS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH XING TFC AT FL260. ZAU CTLR ATTEMPTS TO CLR CONFLICT BUT SAYS 'EXPEDITE THROUGH FL250.'

Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT OF FLT ON JUN/XA/00, DTW-STL. ZOB CLRED US TO FL310. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, ZOB HANDED US OFF TO ZAU. WE HEARD A GARBLED CTR XMISSION WITH EXPEDITE THROUGH FL250, BUT WERE UNSURE OF THE CALL SIGN. BEFORE WE COULD QUERY CTR, THE CTLR STATED 'EXPEDITE THROUGH FL250, OVER.' WE READ BACK THE CLRNC AND INCREASED OUR RATE OF CLB. PASSING FL250 I NOTICED A TCASII TARGET APCHING FROM THE S AT A HIGH RATE OF SPD. THE PROJECTED FLT PATH OF THE TARGET APPEARED TO CONFLICT WITH OURS. AS I KNEW IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE OUR RAPID ASCENT INTO A DSCNT WITHOUT PASSING FL260 I INSTRUCTED THE FO TO AGAIN INCREASE OUR RATE OF CLB SO AS TO PASS THROUGH FL260 PRIOR TO OUR FLT PATH INTERSECTING THE FLT PATH OF THE OTHER ACFT. I ALSO INSTRUCTED HER THAT IF NECESSARY TO AVOID THE ONCOMING ACFT WE WOULD TURN S. WE CLRED THE OTHER ACFT BY 300 FT VERTLY AND 2 MI HORIZLY. CTR THEN BECAME BUSY ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THE PROB AND STATED THAT SOMEONE HAD 'BLOWN THROUGH' THEIR ALT. HE THEN ASKED US OUR ALT WHICH WAS APPROX FL270 CLBING TO FL310. HE STATED WE HAD NOT BEEN CLRED TO FL310. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE FREQ I OBTAINED THE APPROPRIATE PHONE NUMBER TO CONTACT WHEN WE ARRIVED STL. I CONTACTED ZAU VIA TELEPHONE FROM STL, IDENTED MYSELF, AND SPOKE WITH ATC SUPVR. HE ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE THE CTLR BUT WAS UNABLE TO. I EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE CALL. HE INFORMED ME THE ATC TAPES WERE BEING REVIEWED AS WE SPOKE BUT THE MAIN QUESTION WAS 'WHERE DID WE RECEIVE OUR CLRNC TO FL310? HE INSTRUCTED ME TO CALL HIM BACK LATER. I CALLED BACK SEVERAL HRS LATER AND WAS INFORMED THE TAPES HAD BEEN REVIEWED. THE END RESULT APPEARS TO BE LACK OF COM BTWN CTRS. PRIOR TO FLT DEPARTING CLEVELAND'S AIRSPACE, CHICAGO CALLED CLEVELAND VIA LANDLINE AND ASKED THEM TO RESTRICT US TO FL250. THIS WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED. WHEN WE CONTACTED CHICAGO WE TOLD THEM WE WERE CLBING TO FL310. FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CTLR FAILED TO COMPREHEND WE HAD A CLRNC ABOVE FL250. ACCORDING TO SUPVR, THE CHICAGO CTLR ASKED US TO EXPEDITE 'TO' FL250 NOT 'THROUGH' FL250. SUPVR ADVISED ME THE SIT WOULD BE HANDLED IN-HOUSE AND THE FAA WOULD NOT BE TAKING ACTION AGAINST ME OR COMPANY. IF OUR ACFT HAD NOT BEEN EQUIPPED WITH TCASII AND IMC CONDITIONS WERE PRESENT, THE RESULT COULD HAVE BEEN CATASTROPHIC. I BELIEVE THE CAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT WAS FAILURE OF COMPLETE COM BTWN CTRS AND THE CHICAGO CTLR NOT COMPREHENDING OUR FIRST XMISSION WHEN WE STATED WE WERE CLBING TO FL310.

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.