Narrative:

Cleared igono 1A arrival runway 02R. Upon reaching the final fix on the igono 1A arrival; GG422; [GG408] no further clearance or vector received. Followed RNAV arrival track on ILS Z 02R; which was a right turn to fix GG40Y; the if for the approach. While we were in the turn toward a track of 286; ATC issued the following: 'callsign ZZZ turn left immediately heading 180 due to traffic.' the first officer (first officer) was flying; and immediately disconnected the autopilot and manually turned the aircraft to the assigned heading. We were then vectored to the ILS 02R.approaching fix GG408; we were expecting a vector to the ILS; based on previous experience and traffic conditions at the time. There is no note on the arrival about what to expect after that fix if no further clearance is issued. The first officer and I discussed and agreed that in the event of no vector; the RNAV right turn would be what ATC was expecting. I suspect now; that the controller intended to give us a vector; but for some reason did not. The technically correct clearance for what we did should have included a clearance for the ILS Z 02R. The problem is that in china; we get used to operating in a world of ambiguous clearances and difficult communications. It is normal for a clearance to be issued at the last possible moment. An example is that at both shanghai and guangzhou; it is a common occurrence to be within one minute of the initial arrival fix before receiving the clearance for the actual STAR we are expected to fly. In this case; we were faced with a question of 'what is he really expecting us to do?' there is no really clear answer. If the fix GG408 was actually a clearance limit; then the technically correct answer is to enter a hold at that point. That was obviously not what was expected. For my part; the faint warning bells that accompany ambiguous clearances were beginning to sound. I should have queried the controller on what he wanted us to do after GG408. Instead; I assumed that in the event of no further clearance; I was expected to follow the RNAV to the expected runway. This was not the case. I believe the controller momentarily forgot about us. We don't think in terms of the controller making a mistake. I hesitated to question the controller partly due to the fact that the charted ILS Z (RNAV) approach to 02R seemed to be the only reasonable alternative to vectors. I was thinking in terms of 'well; he must have meant to clear us for the approach from the arrival.' bottom line: when I became uncomfortable with the ambiguity; I should have communicated my concerns to the approach controller.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier Captain arriving ZGGG via the IGONO 1A arrival Runway 02R reports reaching the final point on the arrival (GG408) and absent instructions from ATC; continues with RNAV connection to the ILS Z 02R. This is not what ATC had intended and begins issuing vectors for traffic.

Narrative: Cleared IGONO 1A arrival Runway 02R. Upon reaching the final fix on the IGONO 1A arrival; GG422; [GG408] no further clearance or vector received. Followed RNAV arrival track on ILS Z 02R; which was a right turn to fix GG40Y; the IF for the approach. While we were in the turn toward a track of 286; ATC issued the following: 'Callsign ZZZ turn left immediately heading 180 due to traffic.' The first officer (FO) was flying; and immediately disconnected the autopilot and manually turned the aircraft to the assigned heading. We were then vectored to the ILS 02R.Approaching fix GG408; we were expecting a vector to the ILS; based on previous experience and traffic conditions at the time. There is no note on the arrival about what to expect after that fix if no further clearance is issued. The first officer and I discussed and agreed that in the event of no vector; the RNAV right turn would be what ATC was expecting. I suspect now; that the controller intended to give us a vector; but for some reason did not. The technically correct clearance for what we did should have included a clearance for the ILS Z 02R. The problem is that in China; we get used to operating in a world of ambiguous clearances and difficult communications. It is normal for a clearance to be issued at the last possible moment. An example is that at both Shanghai and Guangzhou; it is a common occurrence to be within one minute of the initial arrival fix before receiving the clearance for the actual STAR we are expected to fly. In this case; we were faced with a question of 'what is he really expecting us to do?' There is no really clear answer. If the fix GG408 was actually a clearance limit; then the technically correct answer is to enter a hold at that point. That was obviously not what was expected. For my part; the faint warning bells that accompany ambiguous clearances were beginning to sound. I should have queried the controller on what he wanted us to do after GG408. Instead; I assumed that in the event of no further clearance; I was expected to follow the RNAV to the expected runway. This was not the case. I believe the controller momentarily forgot about us. We don't think in terms of the controller making a mistake. I hesitated to question the controller partly due to the fact that the charted ILS Z (RNAV) approach to 02R seemed to be the only reasonable alternative to vectors. I was thinking in terms of 'well; he must have meant to clear us for the approach from the arrival.' Bottom line: when I became uncomfortable with the ambiguity; I should have communicated my concerns to the approach controller.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.