Flight crew misunderstands ATC climb instruction.

Attributes
ACN	317090
Time
Date	199509
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : svzm
State Reference	FO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 33000 msl bound upper : 34000
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : svzm
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	climbout : intermediate altitude cruise other
Route In Use	enroute : direct enroute other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
ASRS Report	317090
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	317420
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance non adherence : far
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 60000 vertical : 500
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other

Narrative:

At XA57Z on sep/xa/95 over miq at FL330 we requested direct to albog (this is good because it gave us lateral separation for the impending near miss). After clearing us, miq center said something about FL350 and XA59. I said, 'confirm climb to FL350 and say again about XA59.' miq center then said same unintelligible thing. I repeated my response and got similar response. I then said thinking there was a traffic conflict, confirm climb to FL350 for air carrier xx. I then got an affirmative response from center. We started to climb and at about FL338 got a TA at 12 O'clock. Before much could be said as we looked to assess the situation we saw the traffic above and ahead of us and got an RA. The other first officer had just come back from his break and did not immediately respond so I turned off the autoplt and followed the RA. The RA was a 1500 FPM descent. I estimate the closest we got was 5 mi and 500 ft. After 2 attempts to clarify our altitude we finally got confirmation we were to be at FL330. This was a clear case of language barrier problems that I tried to help by clearly and slowly saying confirm climb to. This obviously was insufficient with the minimum english spoken by the controller. Following the incident we spoke to the conflicting air carrier flight on 130.55 and they said maybe we should not climb to conflicting altitudes. I agree we should query these kinds of clrncs. But there is a point when you have to trust and respond to ATC especially when there is a possible conflict. I don't know how to prevent this in the future other than speak slowly and reconfirm the clearance. Also the air carrier flight filed a near miss in the air with dispatch. Supplemental information from acn 317419: then we switched frequencys. Next sector and next controller stated that we were not cleared to FL350. I've been flying to south america for almost 3 yrs now and know the lingo I think, and there was no doubt in my mind or first officer's mind as to our clearance. Supplemental information from acn 317420: when we landed at gru I called dispatch and filed a verbal near miss report. It would appear that language problems continue to be a near and present threat.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC MISUNDERSTANDS ATC CLB INSTRUCTION.

Narrative: AT XA57Z ON SEP/XA/95 OVER MIQ AT FL330 WE REQUESTED DIRECT TO ALBOG (THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE IT GAVE US LATERAL SEPARATION FOR THE IMPENDING NEAR MISS). AFTER CLRING US, MIQ CTR SAID SOMETHING ABOUT FL350 AND XA59. I SAID, 'CONFIRM CLB TO FL350 AND SAY AGAIN ABOUT XA59.' MIQ CTR THEN SAID SAME UNINTELLIGIBLE THING. I REPEATED MY RESPONSE AND GOT SIMILAR RESPONSE. I THEN SAID THINKING THERE WAS A TFC CONFLICT, CONFIRM CLB TO FL350 FOR ACR XX. I THEN GOT AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE FROM CTR. WE STARTED TO CLB AND AT ABOUT FL338 GOT A TA AT 12 O'CLOCK. BEFORE MUCH COULD BE SAID AS WE LOOKED TO ASSESS THE SIT WE SAW THE TFC ABOVE AND AHEAD OF US AND GOT AN RA. THE OTHER FO HAD JUST COME BACK FROM HIS BREAK AND DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RESPOND SO I TURNED OFF THE AUTOPLT AND FOLLOWED THE RA. THE RA WAS A 1500 FPM DSCNT. I ESTIMATE THE CLOSEST WE GOT WAS 5 MI AND 500 FT. AFTER 2 ATTEMPTS TO CLARIFY OUR ALT WE FINALLY GOT CONFIRMATION WE WERE TO BE AT FL330. THIS WAS A CLR CASE OF LANGUAGE BARRIER PROBS THAT I TRIED TO HELP BY CLRLY AND SLOWLY SAYING CONFIRM CLB TO. THIS OBVIOUSLY WAS INSUFFICIENT WITH THE MINIMUM ENGLISH SPOKEN BY THE CTLR. FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT WE SPOKE TO THE CONFLICTING ACR FLT ON 130.55 AND THEY SAID MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT CLB TO CONFLICTING ALTS. I AGREE WE SHOULD QUERY THESE KINDS OF CLRNCS. BUT THERE IS A POINT WHEN YOU HAVE TO TRUST AND RESPOND TO ATC ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A POSSIBLE CONFLICT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE OTHER THAN SPEAK SLOWLY AND RECONFIRM THE CLRNC. ALSO THE ACR FLT FILED A NEAR MISS IN THE AIR WITH DISPATCH. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 317419: THEN WE SWITCHED FREQS. NEXT SECTOR AND NEXT CTLR STATED THAT WE WERE NOT CLRED TO FL350. I'VE BEEN FLYING TO SOUTH AMERICA FOR ALMOST 3 YRS NOW AND KNOW THE LINGO I THINK, AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND OR FO'S MIND AS TO OUR CLRNC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 317420: WHEN WE LANDED AT GRU I CALLED DISPATCH AND FILED A VERBAL NEAR MISS RPT. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT LANGUAGE PROBS CONTINUE TO BE A NEAR AND PRESENT THREAT.

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.