Narrative:

En route to myf, my student and I were cleared for the ILS runway 28R approach. We heard of twin cessna cleared for visual runway 28L at myf. My student (under the hood) continued approach as normal, on GS and localizer, while I scanned for traffic in terminal area of montgomery field. Approximately 1 mi from runways, I noticed the C340 turning base for what I thought runway 28L. He proceeded to drift onto the final approach course for the runway we were cleared to land on, runway 28R! I notified the tower of the situation in front of me: 'tower, the twin cessna is lining up for runway 28R.' tower: 'cherokee xyz, change to runway 28L, cleared to land runway 28L.' 'twin cessna, you were instructed to land on runway 28L 3 times.' I maintained visual separation with the twin and instructed my student to go visual and sidestep to runway 28L, which we did. The twin touched down while we lined up with runway 28L, and we landed safely. I feel this event took place due to: 1) lack of a command of the standard aviation language (english) by the twin pilot. 2) lack of attention by the twin pilot in understanding his appropriate runway assignment (situational awareness). 3) see and avoid responsibilities not performed by twin pilot in identing my aircraft in VMC. I feel a corrective action to this frequent event is to require more training in fluent english aviation phraseology for foreign pilots, and more separation between VFR aircraft and IFR aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28 ACFT ON IFR APCH SIGHTS A C340 LINING UP FOR SAME RWY INSTEAD OF THE PARALLEL RWY. ON CONTACTING ATC HE IS TOLD TO SIDESTEP TO THE OTHER RWY WHILE CESSNA PLT IS REMINDED HE WAS TOLD 3 TIMES TO USE THE OTHER RWY. THE CESSNA PLT HAS A LANGUAGE PROB.

Narrative: ENRTE TO MYF, MY STUDENT AND I WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 28R APCH. WE HEARD OF TWIN CESSNA CLRED FOR VISUAL RWY 28L AT MYF. MY STUDENT (UNDER THE HOOD) CONTINUED APCH AS NORMAL, ON GS AND LOC, WHILE I SCANNED FOR TFC IN TERMINAL AREA OF MONTGOMERY FIELD. APPROX 1 MI FROM RWYS, I NOTICED THE C340 TURNING BASE FOR WHAT I THOUGHT RWY 28L. HE PROCEEDED TO DRIFT ONTO THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE RWY WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON, RWY 28R! I NOTIFIED THE TWR OF THE SIT IN FRONT OF ME: 'TWR, THE TWIN CESSNA IS LINING UP FOR RWY 28R.' TWR: 'CHEROKEE XYZ, CHANGE TO RWY 28L, CLRED TO LAND RWY 28L.' 'TWIN CESSNA, YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO LAND ON RWY 28L 3 TIMES.' I MAINTAINED VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE TWIN AND INSTRUCTED MY STUDENT TO GO VISUAL AND SIDESTEP TO RWY 28L, WHICH WE DID. THE TWIN TOUCHED DOWN WHILE WE LINED UP WITH RWY 28L, AND WE LANDED SAFELY. I FEEL THIS EVENT TOOK PLACE DUE TO: 1) LACK OF A COMMAND OF THE STANDARD AVIATION LANGUAGE (ENGLISH) BY THE TWIN PLT. 2) LACK OF ATTN BY THE TWIN PLT IN UNDERSTANDING HIS APPROPRIATE RWY ASSIGNMENT (SITUATIONAL AWARENESS). 3) SEE AND AVOID RESPONSIBILITIES NOT PERFORMED BY TWIN PLT IN IDENTING MY ACFT IN VMC. I FEEL A CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THIS FREQUENT EVENT IS TO REQUIRE MORE TRAINING IN FLUENT ENGLISH AVIATION PHRASEOLOGY FOR FOREIGN PLTS, AND MORE SEPARATION BTWN VFR ACFT AND IFR ACFT.

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.