Narrative:

While on descent into bna from the northeast, I received a radio call ostensibly from bna approach, which when I acknowledged it, approach disavowed any authorship of. I then checked with bna company station, but they were apparently not yet within reception range. While I was off VHF #1, the first officer apparently received another call. When I returned to VHF #1, I heard, 'air carrier xyz is cleared for a visual approach.' since we were in IMC and the phraseology was off, I now recognized this as a bogus transmission. I called approach and asked him if he had just cleared us for a visual approach to which he replied, 'no, expect an ILS approach clearance in 5 mi.' I then informed him that we were receiving what we believed to be bogus communications and clrncs whereupon he verified our clearance status. The bogus calls, which had never been better than weak and scratchy (suggesting battery pwred, hand-held origin) now ceased altogether. A postflt call to our air safety office initiated an investigation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he has received some feedback regarding the spurious clearance caller from his air carrier. The day following the incident, another aircraft crew reported being given erroneous clrncs and concluded these clrncs did not originate from approach control. The reporter states that the caller was an adult male with a voice similar to the approach controller at the time and that if the caller was more familiar with the system and the event timing, his mischief could possibly have turned into a very hazardous situation. He has no further recommendations how such incidents may be prevented in the future other than to maintain vigilance and a situational awareness in today's bizarre environment.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTH RADIO XMISSIONS (BOGUS CLRNCS) DIRECTED AT DC9 FLT ON APCH TO BNA.

Narrative: WHILE ON DSCNT INTO BNA FROM THE NE, I RECEIVED A RADIO CALL OSTENSIBLY FROM BNA APCH, WHICH WHEN I ACKNOWLEDGED IT, APCH DISAVOWED ANY AUTHORSHIP OF. I THEN CHKED WITH BNA COMPANY STATION, BUT THEY WERE APPARENTLY NOT YET WITHIN RECEPTION RANGE. WHILE I WAS OFF VHF #1, THE FO APPARENTLY RECEIVED ANOTHER CALL. WHEN I RETURNED TO VHF #1, I HEARD, 'ACR XYZ IS CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH.' SINCE WE WERE IN IMC AND THE PHRASEOLOGY WAS OFF, I NOW RECOGNIZED THIS AS A BOGUS XMISSION. I CALLED APCH AND ASKED HIM IF HE HAD JUST CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO WHICH HE REPLIED, 'NO, EXPECT AN ILS APCH CLRNC IN 5 MI.' I THEN INFORMED HIM THAT WE WERE RECEIVING WHAT WE BELIEVED TO BE BOGUS COMS AND CLRNCS WHEREUPON HE VERIFIED OUR CLRNC STATUS. THE BOGUS CALLS, WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN BETTER THAN WEAK AND SCRATCHY (SUGGESTING BATTERY PWRED, HAND-HELD ORIGIN) NOW CEASED ALTOGETHER. A POSTFLT CALL TO OUR AIR SAFETY OFFICE INITIATED AN INVESTIGATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE HAS RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK REGARDING THE SPURIOUS CLRNC CALLER FROM HIS ACR. THE DAY FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT, ANOTHER ACFT CREW RPTED BEING GIVEN ERRONEOUS CLRNCS AND CONCLUDED THESE CLRNCS DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM APCH CTL. THE RPTR STATES THAT THE CALLER WAS AN ADULT MALE WITH A VOICE SIMILAR TO THE APCH CTLR AT THE TIME AND THAT IF THE CALLER WAS MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE SYS AND THE EVENT TIMING, HIS MISCHIEF COULD POSSIBLY HAVE TURNED INTO A VERY HAZARDOUS SIT. HE HAS NO FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS HOW SUCH INCIDENTS MAY BE PREVENTED IN THE FUTURE OTHER THAN TO MAINTAIN VIGILANCE AND A SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IN TODAY'S BIZARRE ENVIRONMENT.

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.