Air carrier crew was questioned by ATC after an 'amended' altitude was issued shortly after a crossi...

Narrative:

Prior to eed at FL380; we were given; 'descend and maintain FL360; cross eed at FL300.' during our descent we were given; 'amend altitude FL340.' then we were handed over to a new ATC frequency. I checked in with the new sector with; 'FL340 cross eed at FL300.' at FL302 over eed; ATC asked to; 'verify altitude 340?' we stated; 'we were given eed at FL300.' no further dialog was exchanged. While preparing for our return flight; dispatch called to inform us that we needed to call the ATC facility. We understood the amended altitude to be the new initial required altitude and that the 'cross eed at FL300' was also still required. The ATC manager stated on the phone that there was no separation or conflict issue with other aircraft. Looking back; it felt like we may have been 'lost in the shuffle' between controllers. We were under the impression that we were doing as required. The ATC manager stated that when the amended altitude was given; that was now our limit to descend. When I checked in with the new frequency; I even stated that we were crossing eed at FL300 and he said nothing to contradict my statement. If we were wrong in our understanding; I would have thought the new controller would have said something.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier crew was questioned by ATC after an 'amended' altitude was issued shortly after a crossing altitude instruction was given. The flight crew was descending according to the original clearance.

Narrative: Prior to EED at FL380; we were given; 'Descend and maintain FL360; cross EED at FL300.' During our descent we were given; 'Amend altitude FL340.' Then we were handed over to a new ATC frequency. I checked in with the new sector with; 'FL340 cross EED at FL300.' At FL302 over EED; ATC asked to; 'Verify altitude 340?' We stated; 'We were given EED at FL300.' No further dialog was exchanged. While preparing for our return flight; Dispatch called to inform us that we needed to call the ATC facility. We understood the amended altitude to be the new initial required altitude and that the 'cross EED at FL300' was also still required. The ATC Manager stated on the phone that there was no separation or conflict issue with other aircraft. Looking back; it felt like we may have been 'lost in the shuffle' between controllers. We were under the impression that we were doing as required. The ATC Manager stated that when the amended altitude was given; that was now our limit to descend. When I checked in with the new frequency; I even stated that we were crossing EED at FL300 and he said nothing to contradict my statement. If we were wrong in our understanding; I would have thought the new Controller would have said something.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	957738
Time
Date	201107
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ZLA.ARTCC
State Reference	CA
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A319
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Descent
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying First Officer
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met

Air carrier crew was questioned by ATC after an 'amended' altitude was issued shortly after a crossing altitude instruction was given. The flight crew was descending according to the original clearance.