Narrative:

We had been on a series of delaying vectors due to traffic on final at destination airport. Our last assigned heading was 360 degrees at 6000 ft MSL. This was another delay vector as we were already due north of the airport and had been on a 090 degree heading for downwind to runway 27R. We received a TCASII TA, followed immediately by an RA. I had the traffic in sight at our 11 O'clock position and initiated an autoplt off descending right turn. The other airplane appeared to be on an easterly heading. Presumably also on downwind to the same runway. That airplane concurrently began a climbing right turn I felt as though we were in the right, because I distinctly heard our call sign given the 360 degree heading, and frequency congestion as the controller was working many airplanes. I feel the overworked controller just looked at 1 airplane and read off our call sign. The captain felt we were in the wrong. He felt, as PNF, he had read back a clearance for another airplane. If this is the true case, then the controller did not catch our mistaken readback. And neither did the crew of the airplane for whom the turning vector was for. I feel that relieving controllers of the burden to listen to readbacks of clrncs for accuracy is poor technique. I am all for making the stressful job of ATC easier, but the answer is newer equipment or more controllers covering smaller parcels of airspace. If controllers are not going to listen to readbacks, then why are we, as pilots, even bothering to respond? I thought the whole purpose of reading back an ATC clearance was to establish 2-WAY communication for the purpose of accuracy. Supplemental information from acn 520955: upon handoff to phl tower, phl approach apologized stating that heading was for another aircraft and that he failed to correct our acknowledgment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIRBUS A320 FLC TOOK EVASIVE ACTION DURING DOWNWIND LEG IN RESPONSE TO A TCASII RA AND THE VISUAL SIGHTING OF THE OTHER. APCH CTLR APOLOGIZED FOR NOT HEARING THE CAPT'S READBACK OF A CLRNC INTENDED FOR THE OTHER ACFT.

Narrative: WE HAD BEEN ON A SERIES OF DELAYING VECTORS DUE TO TFC ON FINAL AT DEST ARPT. OUR LAST ASSIGNED HEADING WAS 360 DEGS AT 6000 FT MSL. THIS WAS ANOTHER DELAY VECTOR AS WE WERE ALREADY DUE N OF THE ARPT AND HAD BEEN ON A 090 DEG HDG FOR DOWNWIND TO RWY 27R. WE RECEIVED A TCASII TA, FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY AN RA. I HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT AT OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS AND INITIATED AN AUTOPLT OFF DSNDING R TURN. THE OTHER AIRPLANE APPEARED TO BE ON AN EASTERLY HEADING. PRESUMABLY ALSO ON DOWNWIND TO THE SAME RWY. THAT AIRPLANE CONCURRENTLY BEGAN A CLBING R TURN I FELT AS THOUGH WE WERE IN THE RIGHT, BECAUSE I DISTINCTLY HEARD OUR CALL SIGN GIVEN THE 360 DEG HDG, AND FREQ CONGESTION AS THE CTLR WAS WORKING MANY AIRPLANES. I FEEL THE OVERWORKED CTLR JUST LOOKED AT 1 AIRPLANE AND READ OFF OUR CALL SIGN. THE CAPT FELT WE WERE IN THE WRONG. HE FELT, AS PNF, HE HAD READ BACK A CLRNC FOR ANOTHER AIRPLANE. IF THIS IS THE TRUE CASE, THEN THE CTLR DID NOT CATCH OUR MISTAKEN READBACK. AND NEITHER DID THE CREW OF THE AIRPLANE FOR WHOM THE TURNING VECTOR WAS FOR. I FEEL THAT RELIEVING CTLRS OF THE BURDEN TO LISTEN TO READBACKS OF CLRNCS FOR ACCURACY IS POOR TECHNIQUE. I AM ALL FOR MAKING THE STRESSFUL JOB OF ATC EASIER, BUT THE ANSWER IS NEWER EQUIP OR MORE CTLRS COVERING SMALLER PARCELS OF AIRSPACE. IF CTLRS ARE NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO READBACKS, THEN WHY ARE WE, AS PLTS, EVEN BOTHERING TO RESPOND? I THOUGHT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF READING BACK AN ATC CLRNC WAS TO ESTABLISH 2-WAY COM FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCURACY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 520955: UPON HDOF TO PHL TWR, PHL APCH APOLOGIZED STATING THAT HEADING WAS FOR ANOTHER ACFT AND THAT HE FAILED TO CORRECT OUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

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.