Narrative:

While at flight level (somewhere in the twenties, I don't remember), ZDC gave us (air carrier X) a descent to 15000 ft and to descend at a good rate. The captain read back the clearance with no query or contradiction from the controller. Upon approaching 16000 ft, the controller asked us assigned altitude and we informed him we were descending to 15000 ft as assigned. He (the controller) then told us to level at 16000 ft then we heard the controller inform air carrier Y to immediately descend to an altitude. We asked the controller if everything was ok and he said yes. On at least 1 other occasion while on this same frequency, we were referred to as air carrier Y, but on those occasions the controller made the correction to air carrier X. At no time was there a traffic conflict made aware to us, nor was there a TA/RA or traffic seen while descending. To my knowledge, there was no traffic conflict for air carrier Y while we heard him on the frequency. Once on the ground in orf, we called the supervisor at ZDC to make sure everything was ok and he told the captain everything was fine and there was no conflict. I think the biggest contributing factor to this confusion in clrncs was the similarity between call signs of our air carrier X and air carrier Y and the heavy workload of the controller. I believe the controller mistakenly gave us air carrier Y's clearance and did not catch the readback as coming from us and not air carrier Y.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB140 FLT CREW EXPERIENCED CONFUSION WITH DSCNT CLRNC FROM ZDC.

Narrative: WHILE AT FLT LEVEL (SOMEWHERE IN THE TWENTIES, I DON'T REMEMBER), ZDC GAVE US (ACR X) A DSCNT TO 15000 FT AND TO DSND AT A GOOD RATE. THE CAPT READ BACK THE CLRNC WITH NO QUERY OR CONTRADICTION FROM THE CTLR. UPON APCHING 16000 FT, THE CTLR ASKED US ASSIGNED ALT AND WE INFORMED HIM WE WERE DSNDING TO 15000 FT AS ASSIGNED. HE (THE CTLR) THEN TOLD US TO LEVEL AT 16000 FT THEN WE HEARD THE CTLR INFORM ACR Y TO IMMEDIATELY DSND TO AN ALT. WE ASKED THE CTLR IF EVERYTHING WAS OK AND HE SAID YES. ON AT LEAST 1 OTHER OCCASION WHILE ON THIS SAME FREQ, WE WERE REFERRED TO AS ACR Y, BUT ON THOSE OCCASIONS THE CTLR MADE THE CORRECTION TO ACR X. AT NO TIME WAS THERE A TFC CONFLICT MADE AWARE TO US, NOR WAS THERE A TA/RA OR TFC SEEN WHILE DSNDING. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT FOR ACR Y WHILE WE HEARD HIM ON THE FREQ. ONCE ON THE GND IN ORF, WE CALLED THE SUPVR AT ZDC TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS OK AND HE TOLD THE CAPT EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. I THINK THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THIS CONFUSION IN CLRNCS WAS THE SIMILARITY BTWN CALL SIGNS OF OUR ACR X AND ACR Y AND THE HVY WORKLOAD OF THE CTLR. I BELIEVE THE CTLR MISTAKENLY GAVE US ACR Y'S CLRNC AND DID NOT CATCH THE READBACK AS COMING FROM US AND NOT ACR Y.

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.