Narrative:

I'd just received a briefing and was taking control of the position. The previous controller briefed that the affected aircraft had been climbed to FL210 (per LOA) but needed a turn on course. A couple minutes later I issued 'fly heading 250; when able; proceed direct grand junction VOR.' the pilot read back '250 direct grand junction (or junction).' these transmissions were verified by tape reviews; although I don't remember the pilots exact read back of grand junction or junction. I few minutes later the ZDV sector we handed off to called and said to be careful with the climb altitudes because the aircraft had reported in climbing out of FL210 for FL250. That is when I became aware and started making the required phone calls. Incidentally; several hours later; the same aircraft and presumably the same pilot; was arriving back in our airspace. When another controller issued 'turn right heading 060'; the pilot read back his call sign and 060 without saying heading. I'm wrestling with this one. It is a very common read back for a pilot to respond with just the numbers in a control instruction without the actual control instruction (not responding with climb/descend; turn right/left; and only responding with 210 or 070. I'm pretty attentive on other read back issues and particularly careful with altitude assignments (almost all deviations at ase are altitude related). So; making the pilot read back the control instruction too may be in order. However; it could result in quite an increased work load and I don't want other priorities being overridden by this. Perhaps this particular issue should be emphasized in read back/hear back campaign on the pilot side.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller described a pilot deviation involving a climb to an unauthorized altitude; the reporter suggesting improved pilot training concerning clearance reply phraseology.

Narrative: I'd just received a briefing and was taking control of the position. The previous controller briefed that the affected aircraft had been climbed to FL210 (per LOA) but needed a turn on course. A couple minutes later I issued 'Fly heading 250; when able; proceed direct Grand Junction VOR.' The pilot read back '250 direct Grand Junction (or Junction).' These transmissions were verified by tape reviews; although I don't remember the pilots exact read back of Grand Junction or Junction. I few minutes later the ZDV sector we handed off to called and said to be careful with the climb altitudes because the aircraft had reported in climbing out of FL210 for FL250. That is when I became aware and started making the required phone calls. Incidentally; several hours later; the same aircraft and presumably the same pilot; was arriving back in our airspace. When another controller issued 'Turn right heading 060'; the pilot read back his call sign and 060 without saying heading. I'm wrestling with this one. It is a very common read back for a pilot to respond with just the numbers in a control instruction without the actual control instruction (not responding with climb/descend; turn right/left; and only responding with 210 or 070. I'm pretty attentive on other read back issues and particularly careful with altitude assignments (almost all deviations at ASE are altitude related). So; making the pilot read back the control instruction too may be in order. However; it could result in quite an increased work load and I don't want other priorities being overridden by this. Perhaps this particular issue should be emphasized in Read back/Hear Back campaign on the pilot side.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.