An air carrier DC10 freighter flight crew on a vector to intercept an ILS approach gets a confusing ...

Attributes
ACN	402169
Time
Date	199805
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sao
State Reference	FO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4700 msl bound upper : 4700
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : sao
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	DC-10 30F
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 102 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	402169
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We diverted to sao paulo from campinas due to below minimums WX at campinas. Sao paulo approach told us 'vectors to descent charlie 29R.' unfortunately, the only approach plate to 9R on the aircraft was 'descent charlie 9.' I asked approach if this (C9) was correct, and they said negative, charlie 2. By this time we were intercepting localizer. Got approach to say 'cleared approach' and we made a straight in (hurried) and were cleared to land. After returning to the states, I found a copy of charlie 2, and believe that approach was expecting us to make a reversal maneuver. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter was the captain on a DC10-30 freighter on a 45 degree vector to intercept the localizer at 4700 ft. The crew was set to intercept from the north and make a straight- in approach when the controller assigned a 'descent charlie 2' approach. The flight crew asked about this clearance several times. They were referencing the final approach segment of the 'descent charlie 9' approach and according to the reporter, were only concerned about that portion of the approach from the intercept point, just outside the outer marker, to touchdown or go around. After several inquiries and confusing responses in heavily accented english, the controller asked if they were on navigation frequency of 111.5 for the ILS, which they confirmed. He then said 'cleared for the approach.' the approach was normal after that. The crew talked about this event the next day a great deal. They found the 'descent charlie 2' approach, but decided that their response was still the safest. They also admitted that they were all very tired after their long flight and several missed approachs at their original destination and then flying to this alternate. This fatigue may have been a factor in the language and phraseology confusion, the captain said.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR DC10 FREIGHTER FLC ON A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT AN ILS APCH GETS A CONFUSING CLRNC FROM A FOREIGN CTLR THAT THEY WERE NEVER ABLE TO COMPLETELY CLARIFY. THEY INTERCEPTED THE LOCALIZER AND COMPLETED THE ILS APCH WITHOUT FURTHER DIFFICULTY.

Narrative: WE DIVERTED TO SAO PAULO FROM CAMPINAS DUE TO BELOW MINIMUMS WX AT CAMPINAS. SAO PAULO APCH TOLD US 'VECTORS TO DESCENT CHARLIE 29R.' UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY APCH PLATE TO 9R ON THE ACFT WAS 'DESCENT CHARLIE 9.' I ASKED APCH IF THIS (C9) WAS CORRECT, AND THEY SAID NEGATIVE, CHARLIE 2. BY THIS TIME WE WERE INTERCEPTING LOCALIZER. GOT APCH TO SAY 'CLRED APCH' AND WE MADE A STRAIGHT IN (HURRIED) AND WERE CLRED TO LAND. AFTER RETURNING TO THE STATES, I FOUND A COPY OF CHARLIE 2, AND BELIEVE THAT APCH WAS EXPECTING US TO MAKE A REVERSAL MANEUVER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR WAS THE CAPT ON A DC10-30 FREIGHTER ON A 45 DEG VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE LOCALIZER AT 4700 FT. THE CREW WAS SET TO INTERCEPT FROM THE N AND MAKE A STRAIGHT- IN APCH WHEN THE CTLR ASSIGNED A 'DESCENT CHARLIE 2' APCH. THE FLC ASKED ABOUT THIS CLRNC SEVERAL TIMES. THEY WERE REFERENCING THE FINAL APCH SEGMENT OF THE 'DESCENT CHARLIE 9' APCH AND ACCORDING TO THE RPTR, WERE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PORTION OF THE APCH FROM THE INTERCEPT POINT, JUST OUTSIDE THE OUTER MARKER, TO TOUCHDOWN OR GAR. AFTER SEVERAL INQUIRIES AND CONFUSING RESPONSES IN HEAVILY ACCENTED ENGLISH, THE CTLR ASKED IF THEY WERE ON NAVIGATION FREQUENCY OF 111.5 FOR THE ILS, WHICH THEY CONFIRMED. HE THEN SAID 'CLRED FOR THE APCH.' THE APCH WAS NORMAL AFTER THAT. THE CREW TALKED ABOUT THIS EVENT THE NEXT DAY A GREAT DEAL. THEY FOUND THE 'DESCENT CHARLIE 2' APCH, BUT DECIDED THAT THEIR RESPONSE WAS STILL THE SAFEST. THEY ALSO ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE ALL VERY TIRED AFTER THEIR LONG FLT AND SEVERAL MISSED APCHS AT THEIR ORIGINAL DESTINATION AND THEN FLYING TO THIS ALTERNATE. THIS FATIGUE MAY HAVE BEEN A FACTOR IN THE LANGUAGE AND PHRASEOLOGY CONFUSION, THE CAPT SAID.

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.

An air carrier DC10 freighter flight crew on a vector to intercept an ILS approach gets a confusing clearance from a foreign controller that they were never able to completely clarify. They intercepted the localizer and completed the ILS approach without further difficulty.