Narrative:

Flight began initial descent into vpg (penang, malaysia) from FL310 to FL130, as per ATC instruction, pilot's discretion. There is an arrival from our present airway. (See figure 1.) however, ATC did not instruct flight to descend via this arrival. As the flight was descending into vpg on the 15 degree radial, ATC cleared flight to 7000 ft report passing 8000 ft. This was after crew asked ATC to verify unintelligible transmission about descent altitude. Again having trouble understanding ATC transmission. Flight understood to report 20 mi. Once again after several unintelligible xmissions from ATC, crew believed ATC was asking for our position relative to the penang VOR. So we attempted to communicate radial/DME from vpg. The closer and lower we got the more troublesome the communication. Finally flight, was cleared to 4000 ft. Again more trouble with understanding what controller was saying, not being sure or ATC's intentions, and the ongoing language barrier. I, the captain, asked if I could intercept localizer DME 10 DME arc for runway 4 ILS. Still struggling to understand ATC, they (ATC) cleared flight direct to the 220 degree radial at 14 DME, which is a point 14 mi on final. We were now on a heading some 120 degrees off intercept heading. Still trying to understand ATC instructions. Flight was cleared to descend to 2500 ft. By the way our present heading put the flight inside the arc. More of the same communication problems. ATC cleared flight for the approach and to contact tower. Not sure, flight asked ATC to verify. They asked if we were established. At this time we had 1 DOT localizer deflection, and turning right, so as not to overshoot. This put us in a descending right turn inside 8 mi. We were instructed to contact tower. Tower, clear and intelligible, requested flight to slow to final approach speed -- traffic departing on runway 4. We were cleared to land. Landing uneventful. At ATC request, flight debrief with ATC approach about arrival. Approach felt that aircraft radios were bad, and that they really expected at least an 8 mi final intercept next time. Otherwise no other problems/conflicts noted. I believe part of the problem was not being able to understand ATC instructions because of the dialect, flying with a new first officer who had been an flight engineer for 8 yrs prior, not requesting or making a request for a full instrument approach, ie, requesting vectors to straight-in approach. Although VFR conditions, I should have made this a monitored approach, instead of flying and trying to assist with the communication. Last, I think perhaps I should have stayed with approach longer. I'll be prepared next time. Debriefing with approach helped to know what they like. One more thing, I should have gone out to the vpg 220 degree radial 14 DME, and asked for vectors back to final, when cleared for the approach that 120 degrees off intercept just didn't make sense.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LACK OF CLR AND CONCISE COM BTWN FLC AND ATC ATTRIBUTED TO LACK OF PROFICIENCY OF ENGLISH BY THE FOREIGN CTLRS AT BOTH THE CTR AND APCH FACILITIES. IN THE APCH PHASE, THE FLC WAS GIVEN A CLRNC THAT PUT THEM TOO CLOSE TO THE ARPT FOR A STABILIZED APCH. FLC HAD TO PLAY CATCH UP.

Narrative: FLT BEGAN INITIAL DSCNT INTO VPG (PENANG, MALAYSIA) FROM FL310 TO FL130, AS PER ATC INSTRUCTION, PLT'S DISCRETION. THERE IS AN ARR FROM OUR PRESENT AIRWAY. (SEE FIGURE 1.) HOWEVER, ATC DID NOT INSTRUCT FLT TO DSND VIA THIS ARR. AS THE FLT WAS DSNDING INTO VPG ON THE 15 DEG RADIAL, ATC CLRED FLT TO 7000 FT RPT PASSING 8000 FT. THIS WAS AFTER CREW ASKED ATC TO VERIFY UNINTELLIGIBLE XMISSION ABOUT DSCNT ALT. AGAIN HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING ATC XMISSION. FLT UNDERSTOOD TO RPT 20 MI. ONCE AGAIN AFTER SEVERAL UNINTELLIGIBLE XMISSIONS FROM ATC, CREW BELIEVED ATC WAS ASKING FOR OUR POS RELATIVE TO THE PENANG VOR. SO WE ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE RADIAL/DME FROM VPG. THE CLOSER AND LOWER WE GOT THE MORE TROUBLESOME THE COM. FINALLY FLT, WAS CLRED TO 4000 FT. AGAIN MORE TROUBLE WITH UNDERSTANDING WHAT CTLR WAS SAYING, NOT BEING SURE OR ATC'S INTENTIONS, AND THE ONGOING LANGUAGE BARRIER. I, THE CAPT, ASKED IF I COULD INTERCEPT LOC DME 10 DME ARC FOR RWY 4 ILS. STILL STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND ATC, THEY (ATC) CLRED FLT DIRECT TO THE 220 DEG RADIAL AT 14 DME, WHICH IS A POINT 14 MI ON FINAL. WE WERE NOW ON A HDG SOME 120 DEGS OFF INTERCEPT HDG. STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS. FLT WAS CLRED TO DSND TO 2500 FT. BY THE WAY OUR PRESENT HDG PUT THE FLT INSIDE THE ARC. MORE OF THE SAME COM PROBS. ATC CLRED FLT FOR THE APCH AND TO CONTACT TWR. NOT SURE, FLT ASKED ATC TO VERIFY. THEY ASKED IF WE WERE ESTABLISHED. AT THIS TIME WE HAD 1 DOT LOC DEFLECTION, AND TURNING R, SO AS NOT TO OVERSHOOT. THIS PUT US IN A DSNDING R TURN INSIDE 8 MI. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT TWR. TWR, CLR AND INTELLIGIBLE, REQUESTED FLT TO SLOW TO FINAL APCH SPD -- TFC DEPARTING ON RWY 4. WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. LNDG UNEVENTFUL. AT ATC REQUEST, FLT DEBRIEF WITH ATC APCH ABOUT ARR. APCH FELT THAT ACFT RADIOS WERE BAD, AND THAT THEY REALLY EXPECTED AT LEAST AN 8 MI FINAL INTERCEPT NEXT TIME. OTHERWISE NO OTHER PROBS/CONFLICTS NOTED. I BELIEVE PART OF THE PROB WAS NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS BECAUSE OF THE DIALECT, FLYING WITH A NEW FO WHO HAD BEEN AN FE FOR 8 YRS PRIOR, NOT REQUESTING OR MAKING A REQUEST FOR A FULL INST APCH, IE, REQUESTING VECTORS TO STRAIGHT-IN APCH. ALTHOUGH VFR CONDITIONS, I SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS A MONITORED APCH, INSTEAD OF FLYING AND TRYING TO ASSIST WITH THE COM. LAST, I THINK PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE STAYED WITH APCH LONGER. I'LL BE PREPARED NEXT TIME. DEBRIEFING WITH APCH HELPED TO KNOW WHAT THEY LIKE. ONE MORE THING, I SHOULD HAVE GONE OUT TO THE VPG 220 DEG RADIAL 14 DME, AND ASKED FOR VECTORS BACK TO FINAL, WHEN CLRED FOR THE APCH THAT 120 DEGS OFF INTERCEPT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE.

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.