Narrative:

Inbound to san jose del cabo, mexico, received route change from mzt center. After lap V1E misex sjd. Changed frequency to cabo approach and issued another route change to V1W. Requested to remain on V1E as we were established on airway, outbound from lap. Approach did not advise of runway in use or approach to expect. Requested winds and WX and told runway 34 was active runway. Crew briefed and expected VOR DME 3 circle to runway 34. Approach controller cleared us to descend to 5000 ft and cross the 'airport' at 5000 ft (not the sjd VOR). Over the airport, approach cleared us for the VOR DME-1 runway 16/34. We reported the airport in sight, and expected the visual as approach did not establish us over the VOR for the approach, but rather had us cross the 'airport.' after passing airport, PF executed a teardrop entry to final, turning inside published procedure approximately 3 mi. At 3-4 DME on final, on glide path, and stabilized for landing, approach control asked if we had executed VOR DME-1 runway 34, and questioned the procedure followed. After arrival and shutdown, we discovered the difference between the VOR DME-1 runway 34, VOR DME-1 runway 16, and VOR DME-3 runway 16 circle to runway 34. Although we did not execute the VOR DME-1 runway 34 as published, we flew the VOR DME 3 circle to runway 34 and did not leave MDA until established on final with airport in sight. Confusion was brought about by different VOR DME approachs and language barriers. In retrospect, I should have questioned the controller's clearance and expectations. WX at arrival airport was clear with light winds from the north. Visibility was unrestr.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE APCH TO BE FLOWN AT SAN JOSE DEL CABO, MEXICO, BRINGS THE CTLR TO ASK 'WHAT APCH WAS FLOWN?'

Narrative: INBOUND TO SAN JOSE DEL CABO, MEXICO, RECEIVED RTE CHANGE FROM MZT CTR. AFTER LAP V1E MISEX SJD. CHANGED FREQ TO CABO APCH AND ISSUED ANOTHER RTE CHANGE TO V1W. REQUESTED TO REMAIN ON V1E AS WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON AIRWAY, OUTBOUND FROM LAP. APCH DID NOT ADVISE OF RWY IN USE OR APCH TO EXPECT. REQUESTED WINDS AND WX AND TOLD RWY 34 WAS ACTIVE RWY. CREW BRIEFED AND EXPECTED VOR DME 3 CIRCLE TO RWY 34. APCH CTLR CLRED US TO DSND TO 5000 FT AND CROSS THE 'ARPT' AT 5000 FT (NOT THE SJD VOR). OVER THE ARPT, APCH CLRED US FOR THE VOR DME-1 RWY 16/34. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT, AND EXPECTED THE VISUAL AS APCH DID NOT ESTABLISH US OVER THE VOR FOR THE APCH, BUT RATHER HAD US CROSS THE 'ARPT.' AFTER PASSING ARPT, PF EXECUTED A TEARDROP ENTRY TO FINAL, TURNING INSIDE PUBLISHED PROC APPROX 3 MI. AT 3-4 DME ON FINAL, ON GLIDE PATH, AND STABILIZED FOR LNDG, APCH CTL ASKED IF WE HAD EXECUTED VOR DME-1 RWY 34, AND QUESTIONED THE PROC FOLLOWED. AFTER ARR AND SHUTDOWN, WE DISCOVERED THE DIFFERENCE BTWN THE VOR DME-1 RWY 34, VOR DME-1 RWY 16, AND VOR DME-3 RWY 16 CIRCLE TO RWY 34. ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT EXECUTE THE VOR DME-1 RWY 34 AS PUBLISHED, WE FLEW THE VOR DME 3 CIRCLE TO RWY 34 AND DID NOT LEAVE MDA UNTIL ESTABLISHED ON FINAL WITH ARPT IN SIGHT. CONFUSION WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY DIFFERENT VOR DME APCHS AND LANGUAGE BARRIERS. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE CTLR'S CLRNC AND EXPECTATIONS. WX AT ARR ARPT WAS CLR WITH LIGHT WINDS FROM THE N. VISIBILITY WAS UNRESTR.

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.