<< >> NASA ASRS Report 567033, November 2002

A319 flight crew assume and acknowledge vector and altitude change from clt when clearance was for company air carrier.

Attributes
ACN	567033
Time
Date	200211
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : clt.airport
State Reference	NC
Altitude	msl bound lower : 9000 msl bound upper : 12000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : clt.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A319
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival star : shine 5
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : clt.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 700
ASRS Report	567033
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 14000 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	566745
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance controller : issued advisory
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Arriving clt from mci approximately XA00, approximately 25 NM from clt, approach issued a heading and altitude for what I thought was our flight. Moments later, after we had complied with the instructions to 'turn right to 180 degree heading and descend to 9000 ft,' approach questioned if we were still on the arrival. I replied that we had followed heading and descent instructions. Approach informed me that the instructions had been for another flight and we provided a new heading for the arrival. I had read back the instructions initially to approach and had received no negative reply prior to executing the turn and descent. We were never informed that there was a similar call sign on frequency on initial call in with approach. It is possible that our transmission may have been blocked by other flight number's transmission simultaneous with ours since we were closer to clt. At the time of transmission, there was no traffic conflict and our approach and landing were uneventful. I believe that had the controller informed us of a similar call sign, this could have been prevented.

Related reports:

• Czeg asks B744 flight crew if they can accept a higher altit...
• An ARTCC radar controller trnee issued a revised descent alt...
• B757 flight crew acknowledge ZBW descent clearance without c...
• Miscom, altitude clearance. Clearance interpretation acknowl...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 FLC ASSUME AND ACKNOWLEDGE VECTOR AND ALT CHANGE FROM CLT WHEN CLRNC WAS FOR COMPANY ACR.

Narrative: ARRIVING CLT FROM MCI APPROX XA00, APPROX 25 NM FROM CLT, APCH ISSUED A HDG AND ALT FOR WHAT I THOUGHT WAS OUR FLT. MOMENTS LATER, AFTER WE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS TO 'TURN R TO 180 DEG HDG AND DSND TO 9000 FT,' APCH QUESTIONED IF WE WERE STILL ON THE ARR. I REPLIED THAT WE HAD FOLLOWED HDG AND DSCNT INSTRUCTIONS. APCH INFORMED ME THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN FOR ANOTHER FLT AND WE PROVIDED A NEW HDG FOR THE ARR. I HAD READ BACK THE INSTRUCTIONS INITIALLY TO APCH AND HAD RECEIVED NO NEGATIVE REPLY PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE TURN AND DSCNT. WE WERE NEVER INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR CALL SIGN ON FREQ ON INITIAL CALL IN WITH APCH. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OUR XMISSION MAY HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY OTHER FLT NUMBER'S XMISSION SIMULTANEOUS WITH OURS SINCE WE WERE CLOSER TO CLT. AT THE TIME OF XMISSION, THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT AND OUR APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. I BELIEVE THAT HAD THE CTLR INFORMED US OF A SIMILAR CALL SIGN, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.

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.