Narrative:

I was receiving instruction on my first ocean crossing as captain. I was the PF. Approximately 30 mi from the aprt I was given a heading for a straight-in approach to runway 8R. On that heading we started to fly thru the localizer. I commented to the instructor that it appeared as though we were being vectored thru the localizer. He agreed. As the HSI deviation needle showed full-scale deflection, approach asked us where we were going. We told them that we were on an assigned heading. They vectored us back to the localizer with a clearance to descend on the glide path. The controller also said that previous verbiage had meant that we were cleared for this approach, for future reference. The vector they gave us was nearly 90 degrees to the final approach course. At the marker we were beginning to initiate a missed approach when approach asked us if we would like vectors for another approach. I said yes and we were vectored for an uneventful approach into gatwick. We touched down in a normal manner and rolled to an intersection, and started our taxi. We contacted ground control to ask for taxi instructions. We received our clearance. I began to look for taxi signs. I discovered there were no taxi signs. According to my instructor there had been taxi signs previously, he too was surprised. There were no NOTAMS that we were aware of. Every taxi sign was missing. The following day we called their ATC people and determined that we in fact had not received an approach clearance as the controller had claimed. There are definite differences in the way we are cleared for an approach in the united states versus england ('cleared for the approach' versus 'descend on the path'). I do not ever remember having this kind of difficulty in sweden, norway, germany, japan, china (taipei) or thailand. We are truly a common people with the britains divided by a common language. We should strive for more standardization and more discipline in our ATC communications. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states he was on IOE with an instructor captain and fully expected the captain to query ATC when they appeared to be flying through the localizer. This probably did not happen because there was a problem with the flight director. The cross-bar was acting up, it would appear and indicate properly, then disappear. The captain was no doubt preoccupied with the equipment problem. However, even on the second approach reporter feels they did not truly receive an approach clearance since the wording was not standard. The conversation the next morning supported what the reporter feels, that they never received a proper landing clearance. Regarding the lack of taxiway signs, the reporter contacted dispatch to include this information in any flight information to alert other flcs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DC10 FLC IS VECTORED THROUGH THE LOC THEN QUESTIONED BY ATC REGARDING HDG. REVECTORED, THEN MAKES MISSED APCH FOR SECOND APCH. ATC PHRASEOLOGY PROB FOREIGN ARPT.

Narrative: I WAS RECEIVING INSTRUCTION ON MY FIRST OCEAN CROSSING AS CAPT. I WAS THE PF. APPROXIMATELY 30 MI FROM THE APRT I WAS GIVEN A HDG FOR A STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 8R. ON THAT HDG WE STARTED TO FLY THRU THE LOC. I COMMENTED TO THE INSTRUCTOR THAT IT APPEARED AS THOUGH WE WERE BEING VECTORED THRU THE LOC. HE AGREED. AS THE HSI DEV NEEDLE SHOWED FULL-SCALE DEFLECTION, APCH ASKED US WHERE WE WERE GOING. WE TOLD THEM THAT WE WERE ON AN ASSIGNED HDG. THEY VECTORED US BACK TO THE LOC WITH A CLRNC TO DSND ON THE GLIDE PATH. THE CTLR ALSO SAID THAT PREVIOUS VERBIAGE HAD MEANT THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR THIS APCH, FOR FUTURE REF. THE VECTOR THEY GAVE US WAS NEARLY 90 DEGS TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE. AT THE MARKER WE WERE BEGINNING TO INITIATE A MISSED APCH WHEN APCH ASKED US IF WE WOULD LIKE VECTORS FOR ANOTHER APCH. I SAID YES AND WE WERE VECTORED FOR AN UNEVENTFUL APCH INTO GATWICK. WE TOUCHED DOWN IN A NORMAL MANNER AND ROLLED TO AN INTXN, AND STARTED OUR TAXI. WE CONTACTED GND CTL TO ASK FOR TAXI INSTRUCTIONS. WE RECEIVED OUR CLRNC. I BEGAN TO LOOK FOR TAXI SIGNS. I DISCOVERED THERE WERE NO TAXI SIGNS. ACCORDING TO MY INSTRUCTOR THERE HAD BEEN TAXI SIGNS PREVIOUSLY, HE TOO WAS SURPRISED. THERE WERE NO NOTAMS THAT WE WERE AWARE OF. EVERY TAXI SIGN WAS MISSING. THE FOLLOWING DAY WE CALLED THEIR ATC PEOPLE AND DETERMINED THAT WE IN FACT HAD NOT RECEIVED AN APCH CLRNC AS THE CTLR HAD CLAIMED. THERE ARE DEFINITE DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY WE ARE CLRED FOR AN APCH IN THE UNITED STATES VERSUS ENGLAND ('CLRED FOR THE APCH' VERSUS 'DSND ON THE PATH'). I DO NOT EVER REMEMBER HAVING THIS KIND OF DIFFICULTY IN SWEDEN, NORWAY, GERMANY, JAPAN, CHINA (TAIPEI) OR THAILAND. WE ARE TRULY A COMMON PEOPLE WITH THE BRITAINS DIVIDED BY A COMMON LANGUAGE. WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR MORE STANDARDIZATION AND MORE DISCIPLINE IN OUR ATC COMS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HE WAS ON IOE WITH AN INSTRUCTOR CAPT AND FULLY EXPECTED THE CAPT TO QUERY ATC WHEN THEY APPEARED TO BE FLYING THROUGH THE LOC. THIS PROBABLY DID NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE WAS A PROB WITH THE FLT DIRECTOR. THE CROSS-BAR WAS ACTING UP, IT WOULD APPEAR AND INDICATE PROPERLY, THEN DISAPPEAR. THE CAPT WAS NO DOUBT PREOCCUPIED WITH THE EQUIP PROB. HOWEVER, EVEN ON THE SECOND APCH RPTR FEELS THEY DID NOT TRULY RECEIVE AN APCH CLRNC SINCE THE WORDING WAS NOT STANDARD. THE CONVERSATION THE NEXT MORNING SUPPORTED WHAT THE RPTR FEELS, THAT THEY NEVER RECEIVED A PROPER LNDG CLRNC. REGARDING THE LACK OF TXWY SIGNS, THE RPTR CONTACTED DISPATCH TO INCLUDE THIS INFO IN ANY FLT INFO TO ALERT OTHER FLCS.

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.