C90 controller claims E145 flight crew took another air carrier's clearance. E145 flight crew aware of similar sounding air carrier call sign after initial frequency change to C90.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	598005
Time
Date	200310
Day	Tue
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : c90.tracon
State Reference	IL
Altitude	msl single value : 13000
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : c90.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	EMB ERJ 145 ER&LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : c90.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
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 : atp
ASRS Report	598005
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued advisory 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
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Shortly after we switched to chicago approach, the first officer and I noticed that there was a similar call sign number on frequency. When noticing this, we both were aware of possible confusion between the 2 flts. We were descending from about 13000 ft when, we believe, we were assigned heading 060 degrees. Shortly after we turned, we were asked by ATC what our heading was and we said, 060 degrees assigned. ATC then said we took someone else's heading assignment. He then gave us a new heading -- 290 degrees to correct. While I am positive in my mind that he gave us -- not the similar call sign flight -- the heading of 060 degrees, I also understand I could be wrong. The first officer is also of this belief. There was no TCASII alert, and while I am not certain, I don't think there was a separation problem between us and another aircraft. My impression of this event is that it is the controller that confused the call signs, given we were aware of that possibility prior to the event. The tapes could always prove us wrong.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C90 CTLR CLAIMS E145 FLT CREW TOOK ANOTHER ACR'S CLRNC. E145 FLT CREW AWARE OF SIMILAR SOUNDING ACR CALL SIGN AFTER INITIAL FREQ CHANGE TO C90.

Narrative: SHORTLY AFTER WE SWITCHED TO CHICAGO APCH, THE FO AND I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR CALL SIGN NUMBER ON FREQ. WHEN NOTICING THIS, WE BOTH WERE AWARE OF POSSIBLE CONFUSION BTWN THE 2 FLTS. WE WERE DSNDING FROM ABOUT 13000 FT WHEN, WE BELIEVE, WE WERE ASSIGNED HEADING 060 DEGS. SHORTLY AFTER WE TURNED, WE WERE ASKED BY ATC WHAT OUR HEADING WAS AND WE SAID, 060 DEGS ASSIGNED. ATC THEN SAID WE TOOK SOMEONE ELSE'S HEADING ASSIGNMENT. HE THEN GAVE US A NEW HEADING -- 290 DEGS TO CORRECT. WHILE I AM POSITIVE IN MY MIND THAT HE GAVE US -- NOT THE SIMILAR CALL SIGN FLT -- THE HEADING OF 060 DEGS, I ALSO UNDERSTAND I COULD BE WRONG. THE FO IS ALSO OF THIS BELIEF. THERE WAS NO TCASII ALERT, AND WHILE I AM NOT CERTAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A SEPARATION PROB BTWN US AND ANOTHER ACFT. MY IMPRESSION OF THIS EVENT IS THAT IT IS THE CTLR THAT CONFUSED THE CALL SIGNS, GIVEN WE WERE AWARE OF THAT POSSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE EVENT. THE TAPES COULD ALWAYS PROVE US WRONG.

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.