Narrative:

We were ferrying a uav back to ZZZ2 from ZZZ1. After taking the handoff from the previous pilot; I continued my climb to FL190; which was assigned by departure control; on our fpr. When departure handed me off to center; I checked in with them; stating that I was climbing through 16300 ft (altitude is approximately) for FL190. He replied with a new squawk code and asked what altitude I was at. I replied with the squawk and altitude climbing through at that moment (16800 ft; I believe). He then again asked for my altitude. I once again replied. He then told me to level off at 17000 ft. I replied stating that I was not able to; due to our certificate of authority/authorized from the FAA restricting us to FL190. He did not reply to me after I said that. After he gave instructions to several airliners and there was a break in the xmissions; I called him again; asking him if he heard my last transmission that I needed to be at FL190 per our certificate of authority/authorized. He then approved FL190. After approximately 60 mi (right before handoff to the next sector); he called me and stated that he told me earlier: 'to maintain 16000 ft and I didn't. He told me to maintain 17000 ft and I didn't. He told me to maintain FL180 and I didn't. And I leveled off at FL190 when I was not supposed to (wording is approximately).' I then told him that: I heard him assign 17000 ft and I told him that: 'I was not able to due to the certificate of authority/authorized restr of FL190 and that he then proceeded to instruct other aircraft. When there was a break in the xmissions; I asked if he heard my last about the certificate of authority/authorized restr I have of FL190 and that they approved FL190.' he then replied; saying that I was supposed to maintain those altitudes and that I did not follow his instructions. To not compound the situation any further; I simply replied; 'roger.' shortly after; he handed me off to the next sector. After that handoff; I called the pilot that I took the aircraft from and told him about the incident and asked him to relay it to our representative to take corrective action on this incident; if needed. I believe this incident was a breakdown in communication between all involved. There should have been better communication between us and ATC because they might have not been aware of our restrs imposed by the FAA. We also probably should have leveled off at the altitude that we were assigned by this controller and sorted out our restr with him when he had the time between xmissions. I hope this isolated incident brings some clarification as to what we are supposed to do when we are assigned altitudes; headings; etc; that conflict with our certification of authority/authorized restrs. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that ATC was notified prior to this mission of the uav's mission required altitude. The controller was required to honor that certificate of operation. The reporter does not know why the controller was constraining the uav's climb when it should have had pre-clearance to that altitude. Communications with ATC is through a relay in the uav that facilitates two way communications. The government agency for whom this reporter works called the FAA's ATC and apparently straightened out any problem that occurred as a result of this event.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PREDATOR UAV PILOT CLBING TO THE FLT'S MISSION ALT CLBED THROUGH ATC CLRED ALT BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION ALLOWED THE CLB.

Narrative: WE WERE FERRYING A UAV BACK TO ZZZ2 FROM ZZZ1. AFTER TAKING THE HDOF FROM THE PREVIOUS PLT; I CONTINUED MY CLB TO FL190; WHICH WAS ASSIGNED BY DEP CTL; ON OUR FPR. WHEN DEP HANDED ME OFF TO CTR; I CHKED IN WITH THEM; STATING THAT I WAS CLBING THROUGH 16300 FT (ALT IS APPROX) FOR FL190. HE REPLIED WITH A NEW SQUAWK CODE AND ASKED WHAT ALT I WAS AT. I REPLIED WITH THE SQUAWK AND ALT CLBING THROUGH AT THAT MOMENT (16800 FT; I BELIEVE). HE THEN AGAIN ASKED FOR MY ALT. I ONCE AGAIN REPLIED. HE THEN TOLD ME TO LEVEL OFF AT 17000 FT. I REPLIED STATING THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO; DUE TO OUR CERTIFICATE OF AUTH FROM THE FAA RESTRICTING US TO FL190. HE DID NOT REPLY TO ME AFTER I SAID THAT. AFTER HE GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO SEVERAL AIRLINERS AND THERE WAS A BREAK IN THE XMISSIONS; I CALLED HIM AGAIN; ASKING HIM IF HE HEARD MY LAST XMISSION THAT I NEEDED TO BE AT FL190 PER OUR CERTIFICATE OF AUTH. HE THEN APPROVED FL190. AFTER APPROX 60 MI (RIGHT BEFORE HDOF TO THE NEXT SECTOR); HE CALLED ME AND STATED THAT HE TOLD ME EARLIER: 'TO MAINTAIN 16000 FT AND I DIDN'T. HE TOLD ME TO MAINTAIN 17000 FT AND I DIDN'T. HE TOLD ME TO MAINTAIN FL180 AND I DIDN'T. AND I LEVELED OFF AT FL190 WHEN I WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO (WORDING IS APPROX).' I THEN TOLD HIM THAT: I HEARD HIM ASSIGN 17000 FT AND I TOLD HIM THAT: 'I WAS NOT ABLE TO DUE TO THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTH RESTR OF FL190 AND THAT HE THEN PROCEEDED TO INSTRUCT OTHER ACFT. WHEN THERE WAS A BREAK IN THE XMISSIONS; I ASKED IF HE HEARD MY LAST ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTH RESTR I HAVE OF FL190 AND THAT THEY APPROVED FL190.' HE THEN REPLIED; SAYING THAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN THOSE ALTS AND THAT I DID NOT FOLLOW HIS INSTRUCTIONS. TO NOT COMPOUND THE SIT ANY FURTHER; I SIMPLY REPLIED; 'ROGER.' SHORTLY AFTER; HE HANDED ME OFF TO THE NEXT SECTOR. AFTER THAT HDOF; I CALLED THE PLT THAT I TOOK THE ACFT FROM AND TOLD HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT AND ASKED HIM TO RELAY IT TO OUR REPRESENTATIVE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON THIS INCIDENT; IF NEEDED. I BELIEVE THIS INCIDENT WAS A BREAKDOWN IN COM BTWN ALL INVOLVED. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER COM BTWN US AND ATC BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN AWARE OF OUR RESTRS IMPOSED BY THE FAA. WE ALSO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE LEVELED OFF AT THE ALT THAT WE WERE ASSIGNED BY THIS CTLR AND SORTED OUT OUR RESTR WITH HIM WHEN HE HAD THE TIME BTWN XMISSIONS. I HOPE THIS ISOLATED INCIDENT BRINGS SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WHEN WE ARE ASSIGNED ALTS; HDGS; ETC; THAT CONFLICT WITH OUR CERTIFICATION OF AUTH RESTRS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER STATED THAT ATC WAS NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THIS MISSION OF THE UAV'S MISSION REQUIRED ALTITUDE. THE CONTROLLER WAS REQUIRED TO HONOR THAT CERTIFICATE OF OPERATION. THE REPORTER DOES NOT KNOW WHY THE CONTROLLER WAS CONSTRAINING THE UAV'S CLB WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE HAD PRE-CLEARANCE TO THAT ALTITUDE. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATC IS THROUGH A RELAY IN THE UAV THAT FACILITATES TWO WAY COMMUNICATIONS. THE GOV AGENCY FOR WHOM THIS REPORTER WORKS CALLED THE FAA'S ATC AND APPARENTLY STRAIGHTENED OUT ANY PROBLEM THAT OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS EVENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.