 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Confusion with similar sounding call signs. A seemingly approved descent turned out to be an altitude excursion when the designated recipient for a descent clearance was not defined by the controller at ZAB, NM.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 539842 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200203 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : zab.artcc |
| State Reference | NM |
| Altitude | msl single value : 35000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zab.artcc tower : sus.tower |
| Operator | general aviation : corporate |
| Make Model Name | Falcon 900 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zab.artcc |
| Operator | general aviation : corporate |
| Make Model Name | Falcon 2000 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 300 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 1000 |
| ASRS Report | 539842 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : returned to assigned altitude other |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Company Environmental Factor Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
During flight to sdl, 2 of our company aircraft were often on same center frequency. Since we have similar sounding call signs, it is our company policy to read back full call signs. As we approached 1 hour or so from destination, a ZAB controller issued a clearance for abzxy to descend. Since both of our aircraft have numbers that end in zxy, I asked, using my full call sign, if that was for us. I was told it was and accepted the clearance using our full call sign once again. About 500 ft into the descent, our sister aircraft asked again for clarification and was told the clearance was for them. We immediately announced the problem to ATC and climbed back to altitude. Upon reaching, I called center and reminded him that I had asked for clarification and had been told the clearance was for us. A discussion about similar call signs ensued. In our present ATC system, similar call signs continue to be an issue whether commercial or private, but I feel in this instance that we did what we could to confirm with center that the clearance was ours. He did not differentiate between the 2 aircraft and thus the problem occurred. To my knowledge there was no altitude or spacing conflicts that resulted from the miscom.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: CONFUSION WITH SIMILAR SOUNDING CALL SIGNS. A SEEMINGLY APPROVED DSCNT TURNED OUT TO BE AN ALT EXCURSION WHEN THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT FOR A DSCNT CLRNC WAS NOT DEFINED BY THE CTLR AT ZAB, NM.
Narrative: DURING FLT TO SDL, 2 OF OUR COMPANY ACFT WERE OFTEN ON SAME CTR FREQ. SINCE WE HAVE SIMILAR SOUNDING CALL SIGNS, IT IS OUR COMPANY POLICY TO READ BACK FULL CALL SIGNS. AS WE APCHED 1 HR OR SO FROM DEST, A ZAB CTLR ISSUED A CLRNC FOR ABZXY TO DSND. SINCE BOTH OF OUR ACFT HAVE NUMBERS THAT END IN ZXY, I ASKED, USING MY FULL CALL SIGN, IF THAT WAS FOR US. I WAS TOLD IT WAS AND ACCEPTED THE CLRNC USING OUR FULL CALL SIGN ONCE AGAIN. ABOUT 500 FT INTO THE DSCNT, OUR SISTER ACFT ASKED AGAIN FOR CLARIFICATION AND WAS TOLD THE CLRNC WAS FOR THEM. WE IMMEDIATELY ANNOUNCED THE PROB TO ATC AND CLBED BACK TO ALT. UPON REACHING, I CALLED CTR AND REMINDED HIM THAT I HAD ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION AND HAD BEEN TOLD THE CLRNC WAS FOR US. A DISCUSSION ABOUT SIMILAR CALL SIGNS ENSUED. IN OUR PRESENT ATC SYS, SIMILAR CALL SIGNS CONTINUE TO BE AN ISSUE WHETHER COMMERCIAL OR PVT, BUT I FEEL IN THIS INSTANCE THAT WE DID WHAT WE COULD TO CONFIRM WITH CTR THAT THE CLRNC WAS OURS. HE DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BTWN THE 2 ACFT AND THUS THE PROB OCCURRED. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE WAS NO ALT OR SPACING CONFLICTS THAT RESULTED FROM THE MISCOM.
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.