Narrative:

Our ATC call sign for this flight was XXX and someone else on ZAU frequency had a similar sounding call sign. While descending from FL330 to FL290, we were further cleared to FL240. At around FL282, ZAU asked us to say altitude. This caught our attention. We responded with 'FL282 descending to FL240' and center told us to stop at FL270. We thought that this was odd, so when we next talked to center, we asked if we had been at the wrong altitude. Center said 'yes' and we told him that we had read back our descent clearance to FL240 when we were given it. Center responded that we must have read back the clearance at the same time as someone else (thus our readback was not heard). Center added that no conflict had occurred and there was no concern on his part. Knowing that there was another similar sounding call sign on frequency, we thought that we were extra vigilant, but obviously could have been more. Also, it had already been a seemingly long day with mechanical and WX issues after a short layover. I've heard it happen several times before where 2 aircraft read back a frequency or altitude change, but usually center catches the fact that 2 aircraft responded at the same time. Besides being more careful when accepting clrncs when similar call signs are on frequency, possibly having center repeat the callsigns twice would help.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DC9 CREW RECEIVE A CLRNC ZAU ARTCC MEANT FOR ANOTHER FLT WITH A SIMILAR CALL SIGN AND STARTED DSCNT.

Narrative: OUR ATC CALL SIGN FOR THIS FLT WAS XXX AND SOMEONE ELSE ON ZAU FREQ HAD A SIMILAR SOUNDING CALL SIGN. WHILE DSNDING FROM FL330 TO FL290, WE WERE FURTHER CLRED TO FL240. AT AROUND FL282, ZAU ASKED US TO SAY ALT. THIS CAUGHT OUR ATTN. WE RESPONDED WITH 'FL282 DSNDING TO FL240' AND CTR TOLD US TO STOP AT FL270. WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS ODD, SO WHEN WE NEXT TALKED TO CTR, WE ASKED IF WE HAD BEEN AT THE WRONG ALT. CTR SAID 'YES' AND WE TOLD HIM THAT WE HAD READ BACK OUR DSCNT CLRNC TO FL240 WHEN WE WERE GIVEN IT. CTR RESPONDED THAT WE MUST HAVE READ BACK THE CLRNC AT THE SAME TIME AS SOMEONE ELSE (THUS OUR READBACK WAS NOT HEARD). CTR ADDED THAT NO CONFLICT HAD OCCURRED AND THERE WAS NO CONCERN ON HIS PART. KNOWING THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER SIMILAR SOUNDING CALL SIGN ON FREQ, WE THOUGHT THAT WE WERE EXTRA VIGILANT, BUT OBVIOUSLY COULD HAVE BEEN MORE. ALSO, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN A SEEMINGLY LONG DAY WITH MECHANICAL AND WX ISSUES AFTER A SHORT LAYOVER. I'VE HEARD IT HAPPEN SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE WHERE 2 ACFT READ BACK A FREQ OR ALT CHANGE, BUT USUALLY CTR CATCHES THE FACT THAT 2 ACFT RESPONDED AT THE SAME TIME. BESIDES BEING MORE CAREFUL WHEN ACCEPTING CLRNCS WHEN SIMILAR CALL SIGNS ARE ON FREQ, POSSIBLY HAVING CTR REPEAT THE CALLSIGNS TWICE WOULD HELP.

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.