Narrative:

When a student pilot of mine was conducting his 6TH solo flight, 2 incidents occurred because of communication problems. This student is a japanese national who speaks fairly good english, but has a strong accent. Our preflight briefing determined that his flight would be in the pie traffic pattern to practice crosswind, soft, and short field takeoff and lndgs, gars, zero flap lndgs, and radio procedures. It was agreed that no simulated engine failures would be done solo. His flight was to be about 1 hour and student was using a headset and push to talk switch. All takeoff and lndgs would be stop and goes or full stops with taxi-backs. This report contains 2 incidents that student did during his 0.5 hour flight. The first occurred as student was doing (touch and go) on runway 9. He was cleared for the option runway 9 while on left downwind runway 9. After his touch and go (he was instructed to perform stop and goes) pie ATCT instructed student to enter a left downwind for runway 22. Student responded correctly to ATC per aim and his flight training radio procedures. Instead of turning left to enter a left downwind for runway 22, he turns right to make a 270 degree turn, entering a left midfield downwind 45 degree entry to runway 22. Student's altitude was 800 ft AGL, the standard traffic pattern altitude at pie. ATC made several inquiries, requesting student's intentions. With each ATC transmission the controller became more irritated at the student's actions because of the disruptions to other aircraft in the traffic pattern. No mid-air incident occurred here: yet, the student's confusion, ATC's irritation, and traffic spacing help set the field for the next incident mins later. As student finally established on left downwind for runway 22, pie ATCT clears student to land runway 22, hold short of intersecting runway 17L for departing coast guard C-130 traffic. Student 'parrots' instructions back per his training. Because of the previous communication problem, ATC repeats clearance to land and hold short 2 more times. Student repeats instructions back to ATC each time. Upon landing, student begins a takeoff. ATC immediately instructs him to hold short runway 17L and abort takeoff. Student complied. ATC instructed student to taxi clear of the runway and terminate flight. Although there were 2 near misses during this flight, the second one with the C-130 was much closer than the student realized. From interviews with my student and ATCT controllers, horizontal distance between the C-152 and C-130 was estimated at 300 ft and vertical separation was 100 ft. Safety was compromised twice in the same flight, both incidents within mins of each other. I feel the first incident helped contribute to the second one, through the student's confusion, ATC's terse instructions, the student's impeded language skills, and traffic spacing in the traffic pattern. Also, the pressure to perform well demanded from his culture was a smaller contributing factor. The language barrier is the primary reason for both near- misses. The student knew what a hold short clearance sounded like and meant, as on almost every dual flight a hold short clearance is issued. Throughout his training, I have heavily emphasized radio communications. Sometimes, enough is not enough. Student is receiving intensive review in radio procedures and traffic pattern operations at controled and uncontrolled airports. He is limited to dual flight until his skills in these areas show competency and his confidence is raised.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FOREIGN STUDENT PLT FAILS TO FOLLOW TWR INSTRUCTIONS ON 2 OCCASIONS DURING SOLO TKOF AND LNDG PRACTICE CAUSED BY LANGUAGE BARRIER. NMAC, PLT DEV.

Narrative: WHEN A STUDENT PLT OF MINE WAS CONDUCTING HIS 6TH SOLO FLT, 2 INCIDENTS OCCURRED BECAUSE OF COM PROBS. THIS STUDENT IS A JAPANESE NATIONAL WHO SPEAKS FAIRLY GOOD ENGLISH, BUT HAS A STRONG ACCENT. OUR PREFLT BRIEFING DETERMINED THAT HIS FLT WOULD BE IN THE PIE TFC PATTERN TO PRACTICE XWIND, SOFT, AND SHORT FIELD TKOF AND LNDGS, GARS, ZERO FLAP LNDGS, AND RADIO PROCS. IT WAS AGREED THAT NO SIMULATED ENG FAILURES WOULD BE DONE SOLO. HIS FLT WAS TO BE ABOUT 1 HR AND STUDENT WAS USING A HEADSET AND PUSH TO TALK SWITCH. ALL TKOF AND LNDGS WOULD BE STOP AND GOES OR FULL STOPS WITH TAXI-BACKS. THIS RPT CONTAINS 2 INCIDENTS THAT STUDENT DID DURING HIS 0.5 HR FLT. THE FIRST OCCURRED AS STUDENT WAS DOING (TOUCH AND GO) ON RWY 9. HE WAS CLRED FOR THE OPTION RWY 9 WHILE ON L DOWNWIND RWY 9. AFTER HIS TOUCH AND GO (HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO PERFORM STOP AND GOES) PIE ATCT INSTRUCTED STUDENT TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 22. STUDENT RESPONDED CORRECTLY TO ATC PER AIM AND HIS FLT TRAINING RADIO PROCS. INSTEAD OF TURNING L TO ENTER A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 22, HE TURNS R TO MAKE A 270 DEG TURN, ENTERING A L MIDFIELD DOWNWIND 45 DEG ENTRY TO RWY 22. STUDENT'S ALT WAS 800 FT AGL, THE STANDARD TFC PATTERN ALT AT PIE. ATC MADE SEVERAL INQUIRIES, REQUESTING STUDENT'S INTENTIONS. WITH EACH ATC XMISSION THE CTLR BECAME MORE IRRITATED AT THE STUDENT'S ACTIONS BECAUSE OF THE DISRUPTIONS TO OTHER ACFT IN THE TFC PATTERN. NO MID-AIR INCIDENT OCCURRED HERE: YET, THE STUDENT'S CONFUSION, ATC'S IRRITATION, AND TFC SPACING HELP SET THE FIELD FOR THE NEXT INCIDENT MINS LATER. AS STUDENT FINALLY ESTABLISHED ON L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 22, PIE ATCT CLRS STUDENT TO LAND RWY 22, HOLD SHORT OF INTERSECTING RWY 17L FOR DEPARTING COAST GUARD C-130 TFC. STUDENT 'PARROTS' INSTRUCTIONS BACK PER HIS TRAINING. BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS COM PROB, ATC REPEATS CLRNC TO LAND AND HOLD SHORT 2 MORE TIMES. STUDENT REPEATS INSTRUCTIONS BACK TO ATC EACH TIME. UPON LNDG, STUDENT BEGINS A TKOF. ATC IMMEDIATELY INSTRUCTS HIM TO HOLD SHORT RWY 17L AND ABORT TKOF. STUDENT COMPLIED. ATC INSTRUCTED STUDENT TO TAXI CLR OF THE RWY AND TERMINATE FLT. ALTHOUGH THERE WERE 2 NEAR MISSES DURING THIS FLT, THE SECOND ONE WITH THE C-130 WAS MUCH CLOSER THAN THE STUDENT REALIZED. FROM INTERVIEWS WITH MY STUDENT AND ATCT CTLRS, HORIZ DISTANCE BTWN THE C-152 AND C-130 WAS ESTIMATED AT 300 FT AND VERT SEPARATION WAS 100 FT. SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED TWICE IN THE SAME FLT, BOTH INCIDENTS WITHIN MINS OF EACH OTHER. I FEEL THE FIRST INCIDENT HELPED CONTRIBUTE TO THE SECOND ONE, THROUGH THE STUDENT'S CONFUSION, ATC'S TERSE INSTRUCTIONS, THE STUDENT'S IMPEDED LANGUAGE SKILLS, AND TFC SPACING IN THE TFC PATTERN. ALSO, THE PRESSURE TO PERFORM WELL DEMANDED FROM HIS CULTURE WAS A SMALLER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. THE LANGUAGE BARRIER IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR BOTH NEAR- MISSES. THE STUDENT KNEW WHAT A HOLD SHORT CLRNC SOUNDED LIKE AND MEANT, AS ON ALMOST EVERY DUAL FLT A HOLD SHORT CLRNC IS ISSUED. THROUGHOUT HIS TRAINING, I HAVE HEAVILY EMPHASIZED RADIO COMS. SOMETIMES, ENOUGH IS NOT ENOUGH. STUDENT IS RECEIVING INTENSIVE REVIEW IN RADIO PROCS AND TFC PATTERN OPS AT CTLED AND UNCTLED ARPTS. HE IS LIMITED TO DUAL FLT UNTIL HIS SKILLS IN THESE AREAS SHOW COMPETENCY AND HIS CONFIDENCE IS RAISED.

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.