Altitude deviation altitude overshot.

Attributes
ACN	246361
Time
Date	199307
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : iah
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl bound lower : 20000 msl bound upper : 22000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zhu
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	enroute : direct enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 16000 flight time type : 11000
ASRS Report	246361
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : overshoot conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	faa : assigned or threatened penalties Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation Operational Error

Narrative:

Instructions to us were understood as 'turn to 335 degrees direct scurry and climb to FL220.' I read back the heading, direct scurry, and FL220 and according to our flight manual, set 22000 ft in the altitude alert window and repeated it orally between the pilots. At FL215 we were given a 40 degree right turn for traffic and asked if we knew we were supposed to level off at FL200. Obviously there had been a mixup and we may have mistook FL220 for FL200, but we are quite sure we read back FL220 and that we followed our operation procedures. Just talked to iah ATC. Tapes reveal readback was FL220. Controller was decertified and is receiving extra training. I feel a bit dissatisfied with the outcome, in that this is a continuously recurring problem and the controller is probably not wholly to blame. Had there been no conflict it probably would never have evolved. I wish I had an answer for this problem. But I'm reluctant to believe that anything beyond a written reprimand for one specific incident is constructive.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV ALT OVERSHOT.

Narrative: INSTRUCTIONS TO US WERE UNDERSTOOD AS 'TURN TO 335 DEGS DIRECT SCURRY AND CLB TO FL220.' I READ BACK THE HDG, DIRECT SCURRY, AND FL220 AND ACCORDING TO OUR FLT MANUAL, SET 22000 FT IN THE ALT ALERT WINDOW AND REPEATED IT ORALLY BTWN THE PLTS. AT FL215 WE WERE GIVEN A 40 DEG R TURN FOR TFC AND ASKED IF WE KNEW WE WERE SUPPOSED TO LEVEL OFF AT FL200. OBVIOUSLY THERE HAD BEEN A MIXUP AND WE MAY HAVE MISTOOK FL220 FOR FL200, BUT WE ARE QUITE SURE WE READ BACK FL220 AND THAT WE FOLLOWED OUR OP PROCS. JUST TALKED TO IAH ATC. TAPES REVEAL READBACK WAS FL220. CTLR WAS DECERTIFIED AND IS RECEIVING EXTRA TRAINING. I FEEL A BIT DISSATISFIED WITH THE OUTCOME, IN THAT THIS IS A CONTINUOUSLY RECURRING PROB AND THE CTLR IS PROBABLY NOT WHOLLY TO BLAME. HAD THERE BEEN NO CONFLICT IT PROBABLY WOULD NEVER HAVE EVOLVED. I WISH I HAD AN ANSWER FOR THIS PROB. BUT I'M RELUCTANT TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING BEYOND A WRITTEN REPRIMAND FOR ONE SPECIFIC INCIDENT IS CONSTRUCTIVE.

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.