Narrative:

Approaching shanghai (sha, zsss) on a flight for a foreign airline from singapore. Contract air carrier, operating a DC8-73 with a crew of 3. I believe we had a controller in training on our approach to sha. We were not told we were being vectored for approach ILS runway 18 as specified on ATIS (we asked). He was late getting us down and (as we expected) hard to understand. He was confused in his instructions, ie, turn left to a heading that was 30 degrees to the right. We asked and it was corrected to a turn right (may have a language problem with left and right, like I have a problem with port and starboard). We were cleared down to 2955 ft and turned to a heading of 090 degrees, about 6 DME north of the airport. We were not looking for a turn to intercept as we were high and were not given one. (GS intercept altitude was 1820 ft.) we were told to turn left to 270 degrees from 090 degrees. We did. We were now at 2955 ft and in approach confign. We asked, 'do you want us to intercept the localizer?' the answer was yes, turn (not sure) cleared for approach. We did, and landed without event. At the gate I was asked to come up and talk to ATC. I did, and through interpretation was told that we were told to turn right to 270 degrees. I apologized if we misunderstood their instruction. I do not know if there was a conflict of traffic or not. I could not understand them. They appeared to be satisfied with my explanation that I thought he said 'left.' I went back and asked the crew what they thought. They remember 'left.' I wrote them a captain report and apologized if there was a misunderstanding (when in china be alert). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter has been into shanghai 12 times since this incident. He has not received any more clrncs that confuse 'left' with 'right,' but he remains uncomfortable with ATC's vectoring procedure. During vectoring, the flight crew is cleared for the approach when they are not on a heading that intercepts any segment of the approach. The air carrier has never been vectored closer than a 90 degree localizer intercept. Commonly, the flight crew is on a reciprocal heading downwind, abeam the OM, when they are cleared for the approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC8 FLC BECAME CONFUSED BY A FOREIGN CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS. THEY WERE TOLD TO TURN L WHEN THE HDG THEY RECEIVED IN THEIR CLRNC WAS ON THE R. THEN, AS THE CAPT WAS LATER TOLD, THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO TURN R FOR THE APCH WHEN THEY HAD TURNED L. AFTER LNDG, THE CAPT WAS QUESTIONED BY THE FACILITY'S TRANSLATOR AND HE APOLOGIZED, BUT WAS NEVER CERTAIN OF THE ACTUAL ATC INSTRUCTIONS.

Narrative: APCHING SHANGHAI (SHA, ZSSS) ON A FLT FOR A FOREIGN AIRLINE FROM SINGAPORE. CONTRACT ACR, OPERATING A DC8-73 WITH A CREW OF 3. I BELIEVE WE HAD A CTLR IN TRAINING ON OUR APCH TO SHA. WE WERE NOT TOLD WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR APCH ILS RWY 18 AS SPECIFIED ON ATIS (WE ASKED). HE WAS LATE GETTING US DOWN AND (AS WE EXPECTED) HARD TO UNDERSTAND. HE WAS CONFUSED IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS, IE, TURN L TO A HDG THAT WAS 30 DEGS TO THE R. WE ASKED AND IT WAS CORRECTED TO A TURN R (MAY HAVE A LANGUAGE PROB WITH L AND R, LIKE I HAVE A PROB WITH PORT AND STARBOARD). WE WERE CLRED DOWN TO 2955 FT AND TURNED TO A HDG OF 090 DEGS, ABOUT 6 DME N OF THE ARPT. WE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR A TURN TO INTERCEPT AS WE WERE HIGH AND WERE NOT GIVEN ONE. (GS INTERCEPT ALT WAS 1820 FT.) WE WERE TOLD TO TURN L TO 270 DEGS FROM 090 DEGS. WE DID. WE WERE NOW AT 2955 FT AND IN APCH CONFIGN. WE ASKED, 'DO YOU WANT US TO INTERCEPT THE LOC?' THE ANSWER WAS YES, TURN (NOT SURE) CLRED FOR APCH. WE DID, AND LANDED WITHOUT EVENT. AT THE GATE I WAS ASKED TO COME UP AND TALK TO ATC. I DID, AND THROUGH INTERP WAS TOLD THAT WE WERE TOLD TO TURN R TO 270 DEGS. I APOLOGIZED IF WE MISUNDERSTOOD THEIR INSTRUCTION. I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF TFC OR NOT. I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THEM. THEY APPEARED TO BE SATISFIED WITH MY EXPLANATION THAT I THOUGHT HE SAID 'L.' I WENT BACK AND ASKED THE CREW WHAT THEY THOUGHT. THEY REMEMBER 'L.' I WROTE THEM A CAPT RPT AND APOLOGIZED IF THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING (WHEN IN CHINA BE ALERT). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR HAS BEEN INTO SHANGHAI 12 TIMES SINCE THIS INCIDENT. HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY MORE CLRNCS THAT CONFUSE 'L' WITH 'R,' BUT HE REMAINS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ATC'S VECTORING PROC. DURING VECTORING, THE FLC IS CLRED FOR THE APCH WHEN THEY ARE NOT ON A HDG THAT INTERCEPTS ANY SEGMENT OF THE APCH. THE ACR HAS NEVER BEEN VECTORED CLOSER THAN A 90 DEG LOC INTERCEPT. COMMONLY, THE FLC IS ON A RECIPROCAL HDG DOWNWIND, ABEAM THE OM, WHEN THEY ARE CLRED FOR THE APCH.

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.