Narrative:

We were at 6000' on a heading of 280 degrees and being vectored for an ILS approach for runway 9R. We were given a clearance to 4000' and told to expect a visual approach to runway 9L. I initiated the descent and while the first officer was entering the new runway into the FMC, I noticed that 6000' was still in the altitude window (my responsibility). I asked the first officer if we had not been cleared to 3000'. He agreed that we had and I then entered 3000' in the altitude window. Shortly after this we were given a heading of 360 degrees. Prior to rolling out on the heading and descending through approximately 3600', the controller directed us to turn to 270 degrees and climb back to 4000' and informed us that we had only been cleared to 4000'. The first officer observed an aircraft below and well clear on an approach to runway 9R. The controller was obviously upset with us, and after vectoring us to the north again, cleared us for a visual approach to runway 9L after we reported the runway in sight. In light of all the confusion, although we think we did, we are not certain that we switched to the tower frequency for landing clearance. No mention was made of this, however, we were only asked to call the area manager approach control, who said no violation would be filed. In my 25 yr career I have landed at this airport hundreds of times. We both agreed that we were both used to 3000' as being the usual initial approach altitude. Although I am new on this aircraft with a 2-M crew and with less than 100 hours in type, I make no excuses. I have been a captain for 17 yrs and consider myself a professional and should have been more alert. Although I don't think it had any bearing on the situation, we had just become aware of the company announcement to cut cities from the schedule, reduce flying and lay off personnel.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT ALT DEVIATION OVERSHOT DURING RADAR VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCH TO MIA. ALSO UNAUTH LNDG. FLT CREW FAILED TO CHANGE TO TWR FREQ.

Narrative: WE WERE AT 6000' ON A HDG OF 280 DEGS AND BEING VECTORED FOR AN ILS APCH FOR RWY 9R. WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO 4000' AND TOLD TO EXPECT A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 9L. I INITIATED THE DSCNT AND WHILE THE F/O WAS ENTERING THE NEW RWY INTO THE FMC, I NOTICED THAT 6000' WAS STILL IN THE ALT WINDOW (MY RESPONSIBILITY). I ASKED THE F/O IF WE HAD NOT BEEN CLRED TO 3000'. HE AGREED THAT WE HAD AND I THEN ENTERED 3000' IN THE ALT WINDOW. SHORTLY AFTER THIS WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 360 DEGS. PRIOR TO ROLLING OUT ON THE HDG AND DSNDING THROUGH APPROX 3600', THE CTLR DIRECTED US TO TURN TO 270 DEGS AND CLB BACK TO 4000' AND INFORMED US THAT WE HAD ONLY BEEN CLRED TO 4000'. THE F/O OBSERVED AN ACFT BELOW AND WELL CLR ON AN APCH TO RWY 9R. THE CTLR WAS OBVIOUSLY UPSET WITH US, AND AFTER VECTORING US TO THE N AGAIN, CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 9L AFTER WE RPTED THE RWY IN SIGHT. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE CONFUSION, ALTHOUGH WE THINK WE DID, WE ARE NOT CERTAIN THAT WE SWITCHED TO THE TWR FREQ FOR LNDG CLRNC. NO MENTION WAS MADE OF THIS, HOWEVER, WE WERE ONLY ASKED TO CALL THE AREA MGR APCH CTL, WHO SAID NO VIOLATION WOULD BE FILED. IN MY 25 YR CAREER I HAVE LANDED AT THIS ARPT HUNDREDS OF TIMES. WE BOTH AGREED THAT WE WERE BOTH USED TO 3000' AS BEING THE USUAL INITIAL APCH ALT. ALTHOUGH I AM NEW ON THIS ACFT WITH A 2-M CREW AND WITH LESS THAN 100 HRS IN TYPE, I MAKE NO EXCUSES. I HAVE BEEN A CAPT FOR 17 YRS AND CONSIDER MYSELF A PROFESSIONAL AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ALERT. ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK IT HAD ANY BEARING ON THE SITUATION, WE HAD JUST BECOME AWARE OF THE COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT TO CUT CITIES FROM THE SCHEDULE, REDUCE FLYING AND LAY OFF PERSONNEL.

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.