Confusion of clrncs between two air carrier aircraft of the same company due to similar call signs.

Attributes
ACN	135120
Time
Date	199001
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : phx
State Reference	AZ
Altitude	msl bound lower : 10000 msl bound upper : 10000
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : phx
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	cruise other descent other
Route In Use	arrival star : star
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight Phase	cruise other descent other
Route In Use	arrival star : star
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 13500 flight time type : 9500
ASRS Report	135120
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Inbound to phx on totec six arrival srp 147R/12 DME 10,000 MSL, 250 KIAS. Approach gave flight 'xyc' clearance to 9000 MSL and a traffic call. We, flight 'xyp' acknowledged and read back the clearance. Approach caught our error, and read back and clarified that the descent was for flight 'xyc', not flight 'xyp' (we did not descend). These 2 flts (flight 'xyc' lax-phx, and flight 'xyp' elp-phx) are scheduled to arrive in phx within 15 mins of each other daily. The approach controller asked us if we were both on time and we were. I have advised our company of the conflict. This type of scheduling of aircraft with similar call signs with fairly similar arrival times should be avoided at all costs. It creates even more confusion when arriving or departing into/from high traffic areas such as phx, lax, ord, etc. Even though we did not descend uncleared we did acknowledge another aircraft's clearance with a very similar call sign. This points out again the need for both pilots and controllers to use full call signs, read back entire clrncs and pay attention to readbacks. Thanks to the alert phx approach controller for catching our readback error.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFUSION OF CLRNCS BETWEEN TWO ACR ACFT OF THE SAME COMPANY DUE TO SIMILAR CALL SIGNS.

Narrative: INBND TO PHX ON TOTEC SIX ARR SRP 147R/12 DME 10,000 MSL, 250 KIAS. APCH GAVE FLT 'XYC' CLRNC TO 9000 MSL AND A TFC CALL. WE, FLT 'XYP' ACKNOWLEDGED AND READ BACK THE CLRNC. APCH CAUGHT OUR ERROR, AND READ BACK AND CLARIFIED THAT THE DSCNT WAS FOR FLT 'XYC', NOT FLT 'XYP' (WE DID NOT DSND). THESE 2 FLTS (FLT 'XYC' LAX-PHX, AND FLT 'XYP' ELP-PHX) ARE SCHEDULED TO ARRIVE IN PHX WITHIN 15 MINS OF EACH OTHER DAILY. THE APCH CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE BOTH ON TIME AND WE WERE. I HAVE ADVISED OUR COMPANY OF THE CONFLICT. THIS TYPE OF SCHEDULING OF ACFT WITH SIMILAR CALL SIGNS WITH FAIRLY SIMILAR ARR TIMES SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. IT CREATES EVEN MORE CONFUSION WHEN ARRIVING OR DEPARTING INTO/FROM HIGH TFC AREAS SUCH AS PHX, LAX, ORD, ETC. EVEN THOUGH WE DID NOT DSND UNCLEARED WE DID ACKNOWLEDGE ANOTHER ACFT'S CLRNC WITH A VERY SIMILAR CALL SIGN. THIS POINTS OUT AGAIN THE NEED FOR BOTH PLTS AND CTLRS TO USE FULL CALL SIGNS, READ BACK ENTIRE CLRNCS AND PAY ATTN TO READBACKS. THANKS TO THE ALERT PHX APCH CTLR FOR CATCHING OUR READBACK ERROR.

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.