Narrative:

Air carrier X was inbound to ord at FL330. Aircraft Y was overflying at FL270. I cleared air carrier X direct ord; and issued a descent to FL280; adding that air carrier X could expect to cross 90 mi southwest of ord at FL240. Sometime later; air carrier X asked if the expected crossing was 50 mi southwest of benky intersection. I reiterated that the expected crossing was 90 mi southwest of ord. When the 2 aircraft were approximately 25 mi apart; I issued traffic to both; noting that air carrier X was descending to FL280. When the aircraft were approximately 7 mi apart; I re-issued traffic. As I issued traffic to air carrier X; I saw the mode C readout go to FL278; and immediately told air carrier X to maintain FL280. The pilot responded that they were 'climbing back' to FL280. (I observed the mode C go as low as FL274 before it went back up; which is not uncommon as our readouts can be well behind actual flight conditions). I inquired if air carrier X had received the altitude to maintain of FL280. He replied that he had indeed gotten the clearance. But had gotten the 'expected' altitude in his head and descended through the assigned altitude. Since the advent of 'computerized' aircraft; I have always attempted to provide pilots with as much information as I can about my future plans for their aircraft -- particularly when I am descending them to an altitude other than that which the published arrival procedures for ord tell them they will be going to. Thus; my use of the 'expect' clearance in this case. I have always assumed (dreaded word) that pilots can use as much advance notice as possible so as to allow them to program future clrncs into their FMS's; only having to execute the programming once the actual clearance has been issued. This also has always led me to be extra vigilant; since issuing a clearance that contains 2 (or more) altitudes can cause confusion. In conclusion; I would like to add that I feel terrible about what I know will probably happen to the crew involved in this incident. Since separation was lost (by 3/10 of a mi); the supervisors and mgrs in my facility had no choice but to process this as a pilot deviation (which led to a loss of standard separation). Due to a simple human mistake -- which I may have instigated through the use of an 'expect' clearance -- this crew must now face the wrath of FSDO and their own company's policies. And all for want of 3/10 of a mi in a case where neither aircraft had to take evasive action; TCAS was satisfied that the aircraft were clear; and neither aircraft even saw the other. Supplemental information from acn 706883: aircraft cleared to FL280; expect FL240 at bdf. FL280 was selected in the altitude window. Prior to attainment of FL280; FL240 was selected; leading to the aircraft descending approximately 450 ft low. Aircraft continued back to FL280 with no further incident. Supplemental information from acn 707046: level at FL330 with clearance to FL280 and expect clearance to FL240 90 DME south of ord VOR. Approaching FL280 I reset the altitude select window to FL240 thinking we had received the clearance to FL240 90 mi south of ord. At about FL275 ATC called and we corrected our altitude.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAU CTLR DESCRIBED LOSS OF SEPARATION AT FL270 WHEN MD83 LNDG ORD DSNDED BELOW ASSIGNED ALT; CONFLICTING WITH OVERFLT TFC.

Narrative: ACR X WAS INBOUND TO ORD AT FL330. ACFT Y WAS OVERFLYING AT FL270. I CLRED ACR X DIRECT ORD; AND ISSUED A DSCNT TO FL280; ADDING THAT ACR X COULD EXPECT TO CROSS 90 MI SW OF ORD AT FL240. SOMETIME LATER; ACR X ASKED IF THE EXPECTED XING WAS 50 MI SW OF BENKY INTXN. I REITERATED THAT THE EXPECTED XING WAS 90 MI SW OF ORD. WHEN THE 2 ACFT WERE APPROX 25 MI APART; I ISSUED TFC TO BOTH; NOTING THAT ACR X WAS DSNDING TO FL280. WHEN THE ACFT WERE APPROX 7 MI APART; I RE-ISSUED TFC. AS I ISSUED TFC TO ACR X; I SAW THE MODE C READOUT GO TO FL278; AND IMMEDIATELY TOLD ACR X TO MAINTAIN FL280. THE PLT RESPONDED THAT THEY WERE 'CLBING BACK' TO FL280. (I OBSERVED THE MODE C GO AS LOW AS FL274 BEFORE IT WENT BACK UP; WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON AS OUR READOUTS CAN BE WELL BEHIND ACTUAL FLT CONDITIONS). I INQUIRED IF ACR X HAD RECEIVED THE ALT TO MAINTAIN OF FL280. HE REPLIED THAT HE HAD INDEED GOTTEN THE CLRNC. BUT HAD GOTTEN THE 'EXPECTED' ALT IN HIS HEAD AND DSNDED THROUGH THE ASSIGNED ALT. SINCE THE ADVENT OF 'COMPUTERIZED' ACFT; I HAVE ALWAYS ATTEMPTED TO PROVIDE PLTS WITH AS MUCH INFO AS I CAN ABOUT MY FUTURE PLANS FOR THEIR ACFT -- PARTICULARLY WHEN I AM DSNDING THEM TO AN ALT OTHER THAN THAT WHICH THE PUBLISHED ARR PROCS FOR ORD TELL THEM THEY WILL BE GOING TO. THUS; MY USE OF THE 'EXPECT' CLRNC IN THIS CASE. I HAVE ALWAYS ASSUMED (DREADED WORD) THAT PLTS CAN USE AS MUCH ADVANCE NOTICE AS POSSIBLE SO AS TO ALLOW THEM TO PROGRAM FUTURE CLRNCS INTO THEIR FMS'S; ONLY HAVING TO EXECUTE THE PROGRAMMING ONCE THE ACTUAL CLRNC HAS BEEN ISSUED. THIS ALSO HAS ALWAYS LED ME TO BE EXTRA VIGILANT; SINCE ISSUING A CLRNC THAT CONTAINS 2 (OR MORE) ALTS CAN CAUSE CONFUSION. IN CONCLUSION; I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I FEEL TERRIBLE ABOUT WHAT I KNOW WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN TO THE CREW INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT. SINCE SEPARATION WAS LOST (BY 3/10 OF A MI); THE SUPVRS AND MGRS IN MY FACILITY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO PROCESS THIS AS A PLTDEV (WHICH LED TO A LOSS OF STANDARD SEPARATION). DUE TO A SIMPLE HUMAN MISTAKE -- WHICH I MAY HAVE INSTIGATED THROUGH THE USE OF AN 'EXPECT' CLRNC -- THIS CREW MUST NOW FACE THE WRATH OF FSDO AND THEIR OWN COMPANY'S POLICIES. AND ALL FOR WANT OF 3/10 OF A MI IN A CASE WHERE NEITHER ACFT HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION; TCAS WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ACFT WERE CLR; AND NEITHER ACFT EVEN SAW THE OTHER. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 706883: ACFT CLRED TO FL280; EXPECT FL240 AT BDF. FL280 WAS SELECTED IN THE ALT WINDOW. PRIOR TO ATTAINMENT OF FL280; FL240 WAS SELECTED; LEADING TO THE ACFT DSNDING APPROX 450 FT LOW. ACFT CONTINUED BACK TO FL280 WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 707046: LEVEL AT FL330 WITH CLRNC TO FL280 AND EXPECT CLRNC TO FL240 90 DME S OF ORD VOR. APCHING FL280 I RESET THE ALT SELECT WINDOW TO FL240 THINKING WE HAD RECEIVED THE CLRNC TO FL240 90 MI S OF ORD. AT ABOUT FL275 ATC CALLED AND WE CORRECTED OUR ALT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.