Narrative:

Approach into el salvador; failed to follow VOR DME Y approach course. Mountainous terrain at night with spanish controller; runway changed from what was expected; captain had not flown into mslp in over 10 years; first officer had never flown into field; high terrain in area; ipad in night mode. Instructed to proceed direct to fix; not on filed arrival or approach. (After landing; we discovered the fix was on a RNAV approach; which [company] said we were not approved to fly; so those approaches were not reviewed)approach did not have heavy line from VOR thru arc; only the final approach course. Controller said; we thought; to fly over VOR and then join VOR DME Y final. We even asked again to confirm. It was unclear to the crew that he intended us to fly a published approach course. The plan view of the approach did not show an arc segment; only the final approach course.crew flew over VOR and then self-vectored to downwind. Controller asked if we were familiar with the VOR DME Y; we replied no. We then requested vectors to final approach course and made an uneventful landing at mslp.(additional distraction; crew tracking gave crew unclear reassignment. Departing 4 hours earlier than original flight; with a deadhead to (original destination) with additional instructions that we would pick up our normal sequence. Once we reviewed what we thought was the plan for the following day; it appeared that they were attempting to schedule us for a 14+ hour days; when our far 117 legal flight duty period was 10 hours. This lead to a distraction in flight; but not to the missed approach instructions.)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: First Officer reported a track deviation on approach to MSLP; citing crew unfamiliarity with the airport and poor ATC communication as factors.

Narrative: Approach into El Salvador; failed to follow VOR DME Y approach course. Mountainous terrain at night with Spanish controller; runway changed from what was expected; Captain had not flown into MSLP in over 10 years; First Officer had never flown into field; high terrain in area; iPad in night mode. Instructed to proceed direct to fix; not on filed arrival or approach. (After landing; we discovered the fix was on a RNAV approach; which [company] said we were not approved to fly; so those approaches were not reviewed)Approach did not have heavy line from VOR thru arc; only the final approach course. Controller said; we thought; to fly over VOR and then join VOR DME Y final. We even asked again to confirm. It was unclear to the crew that he intended us to fly a published approach course. The plan view of the approach did not show an arc segment; only the final approach course.Crew flew over VOR and then self-vectored to downwind. Controller asked if we were familiar with the VOR DME Y; we replied no. We then requested vectors to final approach course and made an uneventful landing at MSLP.(Additional distraction; crew tracking gave crew unclear reassignment. Departing 4 hours earlier than original flight; with a deadhead to (original destination) with additional instructions that we would pick up our normal sequence. Once we reviewed what we thought was the plan for the following day; it appeared that they were attempting to schedule us for a 14+ hour days; when our FAR 117 legal flight duty period was 10 hours. This lead to a distraction in flight; but not to the missed approach instructions.)

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.