Airbus A320 flight crew checked with approach controller to confirm the altitude to which they were ...

Attributes
ACN	507649
Time
Date	200104
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : fgt.vortac
State Reference	MN
Altitude	msl single value : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : m98.tracon artcc : zau.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time total : 20000
ASRS Report	507649
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : altimeter other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : provided flight assist controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

We were a lifeguard flight from msn to msp. The reason for the lifeguard designation was because we had eyes on board for transplant. After departing msn, and using the lifeguard call sign, ZAU asked us if we were a 'priority flight.' we had not heard the word priority used with a lifeguard flight before. We told center we were a lifeguard flight with body parts on board. Center then cleared us direct to fgt direct to msp and turned us over to ZMP. We asked ZMP about the priority turn and they never heard of it either. The problem was that the direct route rather than the kaspr 2 arrival (which was how we were filed) took us right into minneapolis departures. It involved getting down way early and expedited dscnts to get under departures. At one point in my scan, I noticed the altitude warning indicator had 2800 ft set in. I knew this was wrong. We were descending through 4500 ft at the time. I asked the first officer to confirm our altitude with approach control. Approach said 'you are cleared to 4000 ft.' we reset the altitude warning indicator and leveled at 4000 ft. I still don't know if we had an altitude deviation or not. But what we had for sure was confusion on our part and maybe for approach control. ATC worked great with us but as the first officer and I reviewed it on the ground we wondered if it all was worth it. I think the 'lifeguard designation' is a great program to avoid a hold, or a divert, or a long delay, but to avoid a standard arrival route with normal courses and descent points greatly increases workload for the controller and the flight crew. It also causes problems for departures. In our case, I really don't think it saved us any time. It just greatly increased the odds of an incident or altitude bust.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIRBUS A320 FLC CHKED WITH APCH CTLR TO CONFIRM THE ALT TO WHICH THEY WERE ASSIGNED SINCE THE ONE SET IN THE ALT ALERTER LOOKED TOO LOW. IT WAS. CTLR VERIFIED ALT JUST PRIOR TO CREW REACHING THAT ALT ON DURING THEIR DSCNT.

Narrative: WE WERE A LIFEGUARD FLT FROM MSN TO MSP. THE REASON FOR THE LIFEGUARD DESIGNATION WAS BECAUSE WE HAD EYES ON BOARD FOR TRANSPLANT. AFTER DEPARTING MSN, AND USING THE LIFEGUARD CALL SIGN, ZAU ASKED US IF WE WERE A 'PRIORITY FLT.' WE HAD NOT HEARD THE WORD PRIORITY USED WITH A LIFEGUARD FLT BEFORE. WE TOLD CTR WE WERE A LIFEGUARD FLT WITH BODY PARTS ON BOARD. CTR THEN CLRED US DIRECT TO FGT DIRECT TO MSP AND TURNED US OVER TO ZMP. WE ASKED ZMP ABOUT THE PRIORITY TURN AND THEY NEVER HEARD OF IT EITHER. THE PROB WAS THAT THE DIRECT RTE RATHER THAN THE KASPR 2 ARR (WHICH WAS HOW WE WERE FILED) TOOK US RIGHT INTO MINNEAPOLIS DEPS. IT INVOLVED GETTING DOWN WAY EARLY AND EXPEDITED DSCNTS TO GET UNDER DEPS. AT ONE POINT IN MY SCAN, I NOTICED THE ALT WARNING INDICATOR HAD 2800 FT SET IN. I KNEW THIS WAS WRONG. WE WERE DSNDING THROUGH 4500 FT AT THE TIME. I ASKED THE FO TO CONFIRM OUR ALT WITH APCH CTL. APCH SAID 'YOU ARE CLRED TO 4000 FT.' WE RESET THE ALT WARNING INDICATOR AND LEVELED AT 4000 FT. I STILL DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD AN ALTDEV OR NOT. BUT WHAT WE HAD FOR SURE WAS CONFUSION ON OUR PART AND MAYBE FOR APCH CTL. ATC WORKED GREAT WITH US BUT AS THE FO AND I REVIEWED IT ON THE GND WE WONDERED IF IT ALL WAS WORTH IT. I THINK THE 'LIFEGUARD DESIGNATION' IS A GREAT PROGRAM TO AVOID A HOLD, OR A DIVERT, OR A LONG DELAY, BUT TO AVOID A STANDARD ARR ROUTE WITH NORMAL COURSES AND DSCNT POINTS GREATLY INCREASES WORKLOAD FOR THE CTLR AND THE FLC. IT ALSO CAUSES PROBS FOR DEPS. IN OUR CASE, I REALLY DON'T THINK IT SAVED US ANY TIME. IT JUST GREATLY INCREASED THE ODDS OF AN INCIDENT OR ALT BUST.

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.

Airbus A320 flight crew checked with approach controller to confirm the altitude to which they were assigned since the one set in the altitude alerter looked too low. It was. Controller verified altitude just prior to crew reaching that altitude on during their descent.