Air carrier flight crew reported accepting a vector during approach that ATC issued in error which put them in conflict with an aircraft on approach to a parallel runway. The flight crew stated they were aware of a UAS in the vicinity of the airport and accepted the vector because they believed ATC was providing separation from the UAS.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew reported accepting a vector during approach that ATC issued in error which put them in conflict with an aircraft on approach to a parallel runway. The flight crew stated they were aware of a UAS in the vicinity of the airport and accepted the vector because they believed ATC was providing separation from the UAS.
Narrative
The ATIS at ZZZ indicated an unauthorized drone flying west of ZZZ about 9 miles and up to 3200 ft which was discussed during our arrival briefing and as part of our threat assessment. ZZZ was landing XXL; XYC and XZC and while on the approach for XZC in visual conditions at ZZZ; we were level at 5000 ft and cleared for the ILS XZC approach crossing ZZZZZ at 5000 and 180 knots. A few moments later (before crossing ZZZZZ) approximately 9 miles west of ZZZ; ATC issued a call for Aircraft X to turn left heading 040. The PF started the turn as instructed since we had briefed the possibility of a drone in our area. Moments after our readback and initiating the turn; I queried ATC to confirm since the heading would put us into the path of parallel traffic on XYC. ATC confirmed a heading for a different aircraft with a similar call sign ; Aircraft Y; when it became clear he made a mistake. I quickly instructed the FO as PF to disconnect autopilot and rejoin the approach path. I advised ATC that we had taken his previous 040 heading call and were returning to the localizer course. During the maneuver I had visual sight of the other aircraft on the parallel runway and never received a TA or RA. ATC advised of a traffic alert to which I responded we were correcting and had traffic in sight. No other mentions were made by approach and we were still cleared for the approach. We continued the approach and landed safely with no other issues.Cause: The controller was previously working a priority aircraft landing XZL and also was handling multiple aircraft joining the XZC approach course from multiple arrivals. The similar sounding call signs Aircraft X and Aircraft Y resulted in confusion for our crew. The additional threat of the drone lead us to be hyper vigilant for any required course deviations which resulted in us accepting a heading off the approach course thinking it was in response to that but our situational awareness made it very clear it was a mistake from the controller. Suggestions: If possible; I would recommend avoid using similar sounding call signs that are scheduled to arrive a congested airport at roughly the same time. The miscommunication can result in a reduction of safety margins at high volume airports.
Second reporter narrative
During flight [on] Aircraft X from ZZZ1 to ZZZ. The ZZZ ATIS indicated an unauthorized drone 9 miles west of the field and up to 3200ft. During our descent and approach briefing; we covered the potential threat of the drone and conducted our brief. ZZZ approach was handling an aircraft landing on the nonstandard runway of XZL (ATIS reported landing XXL; XYC and XZC) which kept us on high alert as they had priority handling. After being vectored to join the localizer for XZC; we were cleared for the ILS XZC and to cross ZZZZZ at 5000 and 180 knots. Shortly after our clearance; but before ZZZZZ; approximately 9 miles west of ZZZ. ATC issued a call for Aircraft X to turn left heading 040. As the PF; I started the turn as instructed since we had briefed the possibility of a drone in our area; however; both the captain and myself were questioning why no further instruction or information was given to us as we were now heading away from the final approach course after being cleared for the approach. As we initiated the turn; the captain queried ATC to confirm as the current heading would put us into the path of parallel traffic on XYC. It was at this time; ATC confirmed a heading for a different aircraft with a similar sounding call sign; Aircraft Y. When we realized ATC made a mistake. The captain instructed me as the PF to disconnect autopilot and rejoin the approach path. We advised ATC that we had taken his previous 040 heading call; realized that it was for a different aircraft and that we were quickly returning to the localizer course. As I rejoined both the lateral and vertical guidance of the ILS XZC; the captain maintained visual sight of the other aircraft on the parallel runway and we never received a TA or RA. ATC did advise of a traffic alert to which the captain responded 'we're correcting and had traffic in sight'. ATC had no other instructions or commands that would prevent us from continuing the approach as we were still cleared for it or made any indication that we had lost our clearance in any way. We continued the approach and landed safely with no other issues and complied with all SOPs and FARs alike for normal operations.Cause: The controller had just handed off an aircraft to tower landing XZL and was also vectoring multiple aircraft to join the XYC approach course. The similar sounding call signs Aircraft X and Aircraft Y resulted in confusion for our crew. Standard ZZZ high traffic times keep the flight crew on high alert; however; a drone that was reported to be illegally flying near our current position lead us to be hyper vigilant for any required course deviations. These circumstances resulted in the acceptance of a heading not on the approach course thinking it was in response to the drone; but our situational awareness made it very clear it was a mistake from the controller after confirming and hearing the similar sounding callsigns. Suggestions: The stem of this event is the similar sounding callsigns of Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. It is my opinion that callsigns that so closely match should be scheduled to either arrive at different airports at similar times or not to the same airport at similar times especially during high volume traffic into ZZZ to avoid any possible confusion by flight crews or ATC alike.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.