Narrative:

I was receiving IOE as captain on a ferry flight picking up a new airbus A300-600 from toulouse, france (lfbo) to louisville, ky (sdf). We were cleared to taxi to hold short of runway 15R and contact tower holding short. When we contacted tower we were asked if we had the aircraft on final approach in sight. The controller spoke english with a heavy french accent, but both the IOE instructor and I thought that we understood what he was asking us. We told him that we had the aircraft on final in sight. The aft appeared to be on a 5-10 mi final. The controller then issued other instructions which we heard as a clearance for us to back-track on runway 15R to the next taxiway, clear the runway at that point, and taxi to runway 15L. The IOE instructor read back the clearance as we thought that it was issued. The tower controller did not correct us in any way. We taxied on the runway in an expeditious manner so as to not affect the aircraft on approach. As we taxied down the runway, we heard conversation on the tower frequency in french, but none in english. As we approached the taxiway, it appeared that the aircraft on final was closer than we originally thought. Just prior to our reaching the taxiway to turn off of the runway, the other aircraft executed a go around from approximately 300-400 ft. The tower controller then told us that he had told us to back-track down the runway after the aircraft on final had landed. This was not the clearance that we heard or read back to him. In fact, neither the IOE instructor nor myself had any question about the clearance that we thought we had heard or we would have questioned him closely about what he wanted us to do. We continued to taxi to runway 15L for departure as cleared and departed with no further difficulties. I feel that there are several factors that influenced this situation and which will certainly affect how I operate in the future, especially during international operations. 1) the european practice of issuing ATC clrncs conditional upon another aircraft's action (such as landing) can be very confusing, especially to united states pilots with little or no international experience. The language barrier also adds T the potential for error in these sits. 2) although most european controllers speak good english, they often have thick accents which, when coupled with ATC phraseology that united states pilots are not familiar with, greatly increases the chance that a clearance may be misunderstood. 3) in the future, I will definitely confirm conditional clrncs much more clearly even if we feel that we understand the controller's intentions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A306 CREW MISINTERPED CLRNC AND TAXIED ONTO ACTIVE RWY.

Narrative: I WAS RECEIVING IOE AS CAPT ON A FERRY FLT PICKING UP A NEW AIRBUS A300-600 FROM TOULOUSE, FRANCE (LFBO) TO LOUISVILLE, KY (SDF). WE WERE CLRED TO TAXI TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 15R AND CONTACT TWR HOLDING SHORT. WHEN WE CONTACTED TWR WE WERE ASKED IF WE HAD THE ACFT ON FINAL APCH IN SIGHT. THE CTLR SPOKE ENGLISH WITH A HVY FRENCH ACCENT, BUT BOTH THE IOE INSTRUCTOR AND I THOUGHT THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WAS ASKING US. WE TOLD HIM THAT WE HAD THE ACFT ON FINAL IN SIGHT. THE AFT APPEARED TO BE ON A 5-10 MI FINAL. THE CTLR THEN ISSUED OTHER INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WE HEARD AS A CLRNC FOR US TO BACK-TRACK ON RWY 15R TO THE NEXT TXWY, CLR THE RWY AT THAT POINT, AND TAXI TO RWY 15L. THE IOE INSTRUCTOR READ BACK THE CLRNC AS WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS ISSUED. THE TWR CTLR DID NOT CORRECT US IN ANY WAY. WE TAXIED ON THE RWY IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER SO AS TO NOT AFFECT THE ACFT ON APCH. AS WE TAXIED DOWN THE RWY, WE HEARD CONVERSATION ON THE TWR FREQ IN FRENCH, BUT NONE IN ENGLISH. AS WE APCHED THE TXWY, IT APPEARED THAT THE ACFT ON FINAL WAS CLOSER THAN WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. JUST PRIOR TO OUR REACHING THE TXWY TO TURN OFF OF THE RWY, THE OTHER ACFT EXECUTED A GAR FROM APPROX 300-400 FT. THE TWR CTLR THEN TOLD US THAT HE HAD TOLD US TO BACK-TRACK DOWN THE RWY AFTER THE ACFT ON FINAL HAD LANDED. THIS WAS NOT THE CLRNC THAT WE HEARD OR READ BACK TO HIM. IN FACT, NEITHER THE IOE INSTRUCTOR NOR MYSELF HAD ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE CLRNC THAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD HEARD OR WE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED HIM CLOSELY ABOUT WHAT HE WANTED US TO DO. WE CONTINUED TO TAXI TO RWY 15L FOR DEP AS CLRED AND DEPARTED WITH NO FURTHER DIFFICULTIES. I FEEL THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED THIS SIT AND WHICH WILL CERTAINLY AFFECT HOW I OPERATE IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY DURING INTL OPS. 1) THE EUROPEAN PRACTICE OF ISSUING ATC CLRNCS CONDITIONAL UPON ANOTHER ACFT'S ACTION (SUCH AS LNDG) CAN BE VERY CONFUSING, ESPECIALLY TO UNITED STATES PLTS WITH LITTLE OR NO INTL EXPERIENCE. THE LANGUAGE BARRIER ALSO ADDS T THE POTENTIAL FOR ERROR IN THESE SITS. 2) ALTHOUGH MOST EUROPEAN CTLRS SPEAK GOOD ENGLISH, THEY OFTEN HAVE THICK ACCENTS WHICH, WHEN COUPLED WITH ATC PHRASEOLOGY THAT UNITED STATES PLTS ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH, GREATLY INCREASES THE CHANCE THAT A CLRNC MAY BE MISUNDERSTOOD. 3) IN THE FUTURE, I WILL DEFINITELY CONFIRM CONDITIONAL CLRNCS MUCH MORE CLRLY EVEN IF WE FEEL THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE CTLR'S INTENTIONS.

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.