Narrative:

During approach to the montreal mirabel airport we were having difficulty understanding the controller's english. The flight engineer could not understand the altimeter setting and without our knowledge put down what he thought was correct. We told the approach controller directly that we could not understand what he was trying to say to us due to a very heavy french accent. This was also the case with the ATIS information. The controllers were also using many nonstandard phrases and we had to query them many times on their meanings. I have been flying to canada for many yrs and have never experienced this many problems with the controllers. Our approach runway had been changed at the last min and my descent solution had to be adjusted for the approach. This required use of speed brakes and was further complicated by higher power required for anti-ice. The altimeter setting that was given up to us was 30.44 and the actual setting was 30.04. This led to an altitude error on the level out for turn to final of approximately 300 ft low. The controller asked our altitude which we call back as 3000 ft, 'our indicated.' he said that he showed us at 2600 ft and asked us our altimeter. I believe that the use of nonstandard phraseology and the peoples belligerent attitude against the use of english made this problem happen. The flight engineer should have also asked for help in understanding the ATIS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT ALTDEV OVERSHOT BECAUSE THE FLC COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE ALTIMETER SETTING GIVEN BY YUL CTLR.

Narrative: DURING APCH TO THE MONTREAL MIRABEL ARPT WE WERE HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE CTLR'S ENGLISH. THE FLT ENGINEER COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE ALTIMETER SETTING AND WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE PUT DOWN WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS CORRECT. WE TOLD THE APCH CTLR DIRECTLY THAT WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY TO US DUE TO A VERY HVY FRENCH ACCENT. THIS WAS ALSO THE CASE WITH THE ATIS INFO. THE CTLRS WERE ALSO USING MANY NONSTANDARD PHRASES AND WE HAD TO QUERY THEM MANY TIMES ON THEIR MEANINGS. I HAVE BEEN FLYING TO CANADA FOR MANY YRS AND HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED THIS MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE CTLRS. OUR APCH RWY HAD BEEN CHANGED AT THE LAST MIN AND MY DSCNT SOLUTION HAD TO BE ADJUSTED FOR THE APCH. THIS REQUIRED USE OF SPD BRAKES AND WAS FURTHER COMPLICATED BY HIGHER PWR REQUIRED FOR ANTI-ICE. THE ALTIMETER SETTING THAT WAS GIVEN UP TO US WAS 30.44 AND THE ACTUAL SETTING WAS 30.04. THIS LED TO AN ALT ERROR ON THE LEVEL OUT FOR TURN TO FINAL OF APPROX 300 FT LOW. THE CTLR ASKED OUR ALT WHICH WE CALL BACK AS 3000 FT, 'OUR INDICATED.' HE SAID THAT HE SHOWED US AT 2600 FT AND ASKED US OUR ALTIMETER. I BELIEVE THAT THE USE OF NONSTANDARD PHRASEOLOGY AND THE PEOPLES BELLIGERENT ATTITUDE AGAINST THE USE OF ENGLISH MADE THIS PROBLEM HAPPEN. THE FLT ENGINEER SHOULD HAVE ALSO ASKED FOR HELP IN UNDERSTANDING THE ATIS.

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.