Narrative:

During arrival to beijing (from nrt), we were cleared to descend to 4500 meters by ATC. All 3 crew members concurred, checked conversion tables to set appropriate altitude in ft in altimeters (ie, altitude windows). Approaching vyk VOR (OTS) we simultaneously got a call from ATC 'traffic at 4500 meters over vyk,' spotted an air carrier B747-400 at approximately 11:30 O'clock position, checked TCASII traffic 600 ft below us approximately 4-5 mi ahead. Captain smoothly climbed and turned behind/above traffic. In vicinity of taj VOR, we picked up a strong ELT signal. I reported it immediately to ATC. They were discussing it in chinese on frequency and we heard ELT on their transmitter several times, so they were somewhat preoccupied. We were unaware of air carrier's presence (ATC was communicating with them in chinese). Chinese controller's english presents problems. We had very carefully enunciated clearance readbacks throughout flight and several times when 1 of the 3 of us was uncertain of clearance, had requested verification from ATC. Standard 'canned' arrival altitude over vyk VOR is 4500 meters, so you anticipate that altitude. Both vyk and pek vors azimuth were OTS. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the first officer said that one of the problems that he constantly has to deal with in foreign airspace is the lack of a party line. In this case, he could hear the conversation between the controllers and the other air carrier, but until the controller told him its location and altitude he did not realize the danger. In fact, the controller seemed more interested in initially pursuing the matter of the ELT than the traffic conflict. The first officer said that later, after reviewing the tapes of the incident, the flight crew was told that no conflict occurred. Then later still they were told that the quality of the tapes was too poor to make a determination. The first officer said that the flight crew carefully checked the conversion chart with each altitude change to insure that they were at the correct metric altitude. An additional distraction was that a number of navaids were only partially functioning. There was no comprehensive NOTAM system that warned of all of the inoperative navaids. He said that the airport lighting system was often partially inoperative and the airport would have a different appearance at night, depending on which lights were operating, each time he flew to pek. He also spoke about the departure from pek which uses ADF navigation radios. These adfs are apparently located some distance from each other such that a departing aircraft would lose effective contact with the one being tracked out of before the one being tracked in on was being received. He said that the flight crew would hold the last heading or request vectors until the next ADF signal was reliable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B747-200 HAS A CONFLICT WITH A FOREIGN ACR IN FOREIGN AIRSPACE. RPTR CITES LANGUAGE BARRIER AS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR.

Narrative: DURING ARR TO BEIJING (FROM NRT), WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO 4500 METERS BY ATC. ALL 3 CREW MEMBERS CONCURRED, CHKED CONVERSION TABLES TO SET APPROPRIATE ALT IN FT IN ALTIMETERS (IE, ALT WINDOWS). APCHING VYK VOR (OTS) WE SIMULTANEOUSLY GOT A CALL FROM ATC 'TFC AT 4500 METERS OVER VYK,' SPOTTED AN ACR B747-400 AT APPROX 11:30 O'CLOCK POS, CHKED TCASII TFC 600 FT BELOW US APPROX 4-5 MI AHEAD. CAPT SMOOTHLY CLBED AND TURNED BEHIND/ABOVE TFC. IN VICINITY OF TAJ VOR, WE PICKED UP A STRONG ELT SIGNAL. I RPTED IT IMMEDIATELY TO ATC. THEY WERE DISCUSSING IT IN CHINESE ON FREQ AND WE HEARD ELT ON THEIR XMITTER SEVERAL TIMES, SO THEY WERE SOMEWHAT PREOCCUPIED. WE WERE UNAWARE OF ACR'S PRESENCE (ATC WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THEM IN CHINESE). CHINESE CTLR'S ENGLISH PRESENTS PROBS. WE HAD VERY CAREFULLY ENUNCIATED CLRNC READBACKS THROUGHOUT FLT AND SEVERAL TIMES WHEN 1 OF THE 3 OF US WAS UNCERTAIN OF CLRNC, HAD REQUESTED VERIFICATION FROM ATC. STANDARD 'CANNED' ARR ALT OVER VYK VOR IS 4500 METERS, SO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT ALT. BOTH VYK AND PEK VORS AZIMUTH WERE OTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE FO SAID THAT ONE OF THE PROBS THAT HE CONSTANTLY HAS TO DEAL WITH IN FOREIGN AIRSPACE IS THE LACK OF A PARTY LINE. IN THIS CASE, HE COULD HEAR THE CONVERSATION BTWN THE CTLRS AND THE OTHER ACR, BUT UNTIL THE CTLR TOLD HIM ITS LOCATION AND ALT HE DID NOT REALIZE THE DANGER. IN FACT, THE CTLR SEEMED MORE INTERESTED IN INITIALLY PURSUING THE MATTER OF THE ELT THAN THE TFC CONFLICT. THE FO SAID THAT LATER, AFTER REVIEWING THE TAPES OF THE INCIDENT, THE FLC WAS TOLD THAT NO CONFLICT OCCURRED. THEN LATER STILL THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE QUALITY OF THE TAPES WAS TOO POOR TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. THE FO SAID THAT THE FLC CAREFULLY CHKED THE CONVERSION CHART WITH EACH ALT CHANGE TO INSURE THAT THEY WERE AT THE CORRECT METRIC ALT. AN ADDITIONAL DISTR WAS THAT A NUMBER OF NAVAIDS WERE ONLY PARTIALLY FUNCTIONING. THERE WAS NO COMPREHENSIVE NOTAM SYS THAT WARNED OF ALL OF THE INOP NAVAIDS. HE SAID THAT THE ARPT LIGHTING SYS WAS OFTEN PARTIALLY INOP AND THE ARPT WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT APPEARANCE AT NIGHT, DEPENDING ON WHICH LIGHTS WERE OPERATING, EACH TIME HE FLEW TO PEK. HE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT THE DEP FROM PEK WHICH USES ADF NAV RADIOS. THESE ADFS ARE APPARENTLY LOCATED SOME DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER SUCH THAT A DEPARTING ACFT WOULD LOSE EFFECTIVE CONTACT WITH THE ONE BEING TRACKED OUT OF BEFORE THE ONE BEING TRACKED IN ON WAS BEING RECEIVED. HE SAID THAT THE FLC WOULD HOLD THE LAST HDG OR REQUEST VECTORS UNTIL THE NEXT ADF SIGNAL WAS RELIABLE.

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.