Narrative:

During descent 20 mi northeast of acapulco, mexico, VOR, I requested the captain to request a visibility approach into aca since I had the field in sight. He made the request. It was my understanding that the mexican controller, speaking in broken english, cleared us for a 'visibility approach to runway 28, cleared to land.' no one in the cockpit questioned the clearance, and I assumed everyone on the flight deck understood its meaning. I entered the traffic pattern on a right base and completed the approach to a landing on runway 28. After landing we contacted ground for taxi instructions. They advised us that we had been cleared (according to approach) to enter traffic on a left base and to report final. We, however, understood our clearance was merely 'cleared for a visibility approach to 28, cleared to land.' in my opinion, the controller's english was difficult to understand. Even if we had reason to question the clearance, it may have taken repeated questioning to obtain precise instructions. Recommend every scheduled us carrier operating in mexico brief their crews that repeated readbacks may be necessary on approachs to obtain proper clrncs, and that lost communications procedures may have to be implemented if clrncs are not obtained.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT ON VISUAL LNDG HAS CLRNC CONFUSION. FLIES WRONG TRAFFIC PATTERN. LANDS WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: DURING DSNT 20 MI NE OF ACAPULCO, MEXICO, VOR, I REQUESTED THE CAPT TO REQUEST A VIS APCH INTO ACA SINCE I HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT. HE MADE THE REQUEST. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MEXICAN CTLR, SPEAKING IN BROKEN ENGLISH, CLRED US FOR A 'VIS APCH TO RWY 28, CLRED TO LAND.' NO ONE IN THE COCKPIT QUESTIONED THE CLRNC, AND I ASSUMED EVERYONE ON THE FLT DECK UNDERSTOOD ITS MEANING. I ENTERED THE TFC PATTERN ON A RIGHT BASE AND COMPLETED THE APCH TO A LNDG ON RWY 28. AFTER LNDG WE CONTACTED GND FOR TAXI INSTRUCTIONS. THEY ADVISED US THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED (ACCORDING TO APCH) TO ENTER TFC ON A LEFT BASE AND TO RPT FINAL. WE, HOWEVER, UNDERSTOOD OUR CLRNC WAS MERELY 'CLRED FOR A VIS APCH TO 28, CLRED TO LAND.' IN MY OPINION, THE CTLR'S ENGLISH WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. EVEN IF WE HAD REASON TO QUESTION THE CLRNC, IT MAY HAVE TAKEN REPEATED QUESTIONING TO OBTAIN PRECISE INSTRUCTIONS. RECOMMEND EVERY SCHEDULED U.S. CARRIER OPERATING IN MEXICO BRIEF THEIR CREWS THAT REPEATED READBACKS MAY BE NECESSARY ON APCHS TO OBTAIN PROPER CLRNCS, AND THAT LOST COMS PROCS MAY HAVE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IF CLRNCS ARE NOT OBTAINED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.