Narrative:

In cruising flight, with my headset removed and my speaker turned up, we received an ACARS uplink message to call 130.4. After contacting sfo commercial radio on 130.4, they advised they had no message for us. I then called our active (I thought) ATC frequency 127.55 to verify contact. The controller answered immediately and said we needed handoff to 134.2 and that he had been trying to reach us for quite a while.when we called 134.2 I asked how long they had been trying to reach us, and he said, 'about the last 60 mi.' I have to believe that, of course, which means I really missed it. I can't remember having heard any traffic at all in the few mins preceeding the event. It was proving to be a strenuous leg in other ways. The captain was (admittedly) low proficiency. He had been line checked in the new aircraft type 8 weeks earlier and had not flown at all since. I was finding it necessary to closely observe everything going on, was flying, and fielding lots of (relevant) questions about the onboard FMC's and navigation features. I was consciously trying my very best during a difficult flight, and still missed it. A lesson about cockpit conversation, I think, no matter what the subject. I must, however, (and west/O searching for scapegoats) include my company's laissez-faire attitude toward putting crewmembers in that particular 'proficiency corner' on this aircraft. It happens a lot, most particularly in international operations, and I really feel its a tribute to our pilot group at large that there aren't more (and more serious) incidents.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB MISSED FREQ CHANGE TO NEXT ARTCC AREA.

Narrative: IN CRUISING FLT, WITH MY HEADSET REMOVED AND MY SPEAKER TURNED UP, WE RECEIVED AN ACARS UPLINK MESSAGE TO CALL 130.4. AFTER CONTACTING SFO COMMERCIAL RADIO ON 130.4, THEY ADVISED THEY HAD NO MESSAGE FOR US. I THEN CALLED OUR ACTIVE (I THOUGHT) ATC FREQ 127.55 TO VERIFY CONTACT. THE CTLR ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY AND SAID WE NEEDED HANDOFF TO 134.2 AND THAT HE HAD BEEN TRYING TO REACH US FOR QUITE A WHILE.WHEN WE CALLED 134.2 I ASKED HOW LONG THEY HAD BEEN TRYING TO REACH US, AND HE SAID, 'ABOUT THE LAST 60 MI.' I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT, OF COURSE, WHICH MEANS I REALLY MISSED IT. I CAN'T REMEMBER HAVING HEARD ANY TFC AT ALL IN THE FEW MINS PRECEEDING THE EVENT. IT WAS PROVING TO BE A STRENUOUS LEG IN OTHER WAYS. THE CAPT WAS (ADMITTEDLY) LOW PROFICIENCY. HE HAD BEEN LINE CHKED IN THE NEW ACFT TYPE 8 WKS EARLIER AND HAD NOT FLOWN AT ALL SINCE. I WAS FINDING IT NECESSARY TO CLOSELY OBSERVE EVERYTHING GOING ON, WAS FLYING, AND FIELDING LOTS OF (RELEVANT) QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ONBOARD FMC'S AND NAV FEATURES. I WAS CONSCIOUSLY TRYING MY VERY BEST DURING A DIFFICULT FLT, AND STILL MISSED IT. A LESSON ABOUT COCKPIT CONVERSATION, I THINK, NO MATTER WHAT THE SUBJECT. I MUST, HOWEVER, (AND W/O SEARCHING FOR SCAPEGOATS) INCLUDE MY COMPANY'S LAISSEZ-FAIRE ATTITUDE TOWARD PUTTING CREWMEMBERS IN THAT PARTICULAR 'PROFICIENCY CORNER' ON THIS ACFT. IT HAPPENS A LOT, MOST PARTICULARLY IN INTL OPERATIONS, AND I REALLY FEEL ITS A TRIBUTE TO OUR PLT GROUP AT LARGE THAT THERE AREN'T MORE (AND MORE SERIOUS) INCIDENTS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.