Narrative:

Mexico city int'l airport. During taxi from terminal, for departure runway 23L, we were told to 'hold short' at two different intxns. Hold short clearances were specific appropriate and complied with. Upon intersecting final taxiway, we were told to 'follow air carrier Y 727' for runway 23L. After air carrier Y departed, tower said 'air carrier X flight abcd, runway 23 left, position and hold. You are number three for departure.' clearance 'into position and hold' was acknowledged. Prior to crossing hold lines, we observed another aircraft on final, presumably for the right (23) runway. Runway spacing is close and difficult to discern for which runway arriving traffic is aligned. As we started to access runway, it looked more like the arriving A320 was lining up with runway 23L. We stopped aircraft, set parking brake and asked tower to verify that landing aircraft was landing runway 23R. Response was 'roger, landing runway 23 right.' after a slight pause, controller said 'air carrier X, hold your position.' we remained stopped, and watched A320 land on the runway to which we had been cleared. All communications between landing aircraft and tower were in spanish and we had little idea what was issued as a clearance or acknowledged. Conclusion-particularly in 'bilingual' parts of world, be especially vigilant! Otherwise, the consequences could ruin your day. (This is the second time that this has occurred to me in mexico city. The first time the controller demanded that we taxi into position stating categorically that the landing aircraft was landing on the other runway. We didn't taxi on the runway and they didn't land on the other runway.) callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated a company report was filed. Company advised that they would discuss this incident 'through channels.' the previous incident referred to happened yrs before. In fact, the reporter states, he has seen marked improvement in english phraseology at MMMX, and if he didn't know better, with some of the MMMX controllers, could consider himself at any number of us airports. Yet a concern of the flight crew is the use of spanish with all other regional carriers. The pilot stated, that because of their lack of language skill, they just do not know what else is going on. In this incident, due to the relatively close proximity of runway 23L and 23R, he just was not comfortable with the 'taxi into position' with the perceived alignment of the A320 on short final. As was proved, there was an apparent intrafac coordination breakdown for landing runway assignment.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CAPT CHALLENGES MMMX CTLR WHETHER LNDG TFC IS ALIGNED TO THE CORRECT RWY AS THEY ARE CLRED INTO POS AND HOLD.

Narrative: MEXICO CITY INT'L ARPT. DURING TAXI FROM TERMINAL, FOR DEP RWY 23L, WE WERE TOLD TO 'HOLD SHORT' AT TWO DIFFERENT INTXNS. HOLD SHORT CLEARANCES WERE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATE AND COMPLIED WITH. UPON INTERSECTING FINAL TXWY, WE WERE TOLD TO 'FOLLOW ACR Y 727' FOR RWY 23L. AFTER ACR Y DEPARTED, TWR SAID 'ACR X FLT ABCD, RWY 23 L, POSITION AND HOLD. YOU ARE NUMBER THREE FOR DEP.' CLRNC 'INTO POS AND HOLD' WAS ACKNOWLEDGED. PRIOR TO XING HOLD LINES, WE OBSERVED ANOTHER ACFT ON FINAL, PRESUMABLY FOR THE R (23) RWY. RWY SPACING IS CLOSE AND DIFFICULT TO DISCERN FOR WHICH RWY ARRIVING TFC IS ALIGNED. AS WE STARTED TO ACCESS RWY, IT LOOKED MORE LIKE THE ARRIVING A320 WAS LINING UP WITH RWY 23L. WE STOPPED ACFT, SET PARKING BRAKE AND ASKED TWR TO VERIFY THAT LNDG ACFT WAS LNDG RWY 23R. RESPONSE WAS 'ROGER, LNDG RWY 23 R.' AFTER A SLIGHT PAUSE, CTLR SAID 'ACR X, HOLD YOUR POSITION.' WE REMAINED STOPPED, AND WATCHED A320 LAND ON THE RWY TO WHICH WE HAD BEEN CLRED. ALL COMS BTWN LNDG ACFT AND TWR WERE IN SPANISH AND WE HAD LITTLE IDEA WHAT WAS ISSUED AS A CLRNC OR ACKNOWLEDGED. CONCLUSION-PARTICULARLY IN 'BILINGUAL' PARTS OF WORLD, BE ESPECIALLY VIGILANT! OTHERWISE, THE CONSEQUENCES COULD RUIN YOUR DAY. (THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAS OCCURRED TO ME IN MEXICO CITY. THE FIRST TIME THE CTLR DEMANDED THAT WE TAXI INTO POS STATING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE LNDG ACFT WAS LNDG ON THE OTHER RWY. WE DIDN'T TAXI ON THE RWY AND THEY DIDN'T LAND ON THE OTHER RWY.) CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED A COMPANY RPT WAS FILED. COMPANY ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD DISCUSS THIS INCIDENT 'THROUGH CHANNELS.' THE PREVIOUS INCIDENT REFERRED TO HAPPENED YRS BEFORE. IN FACT, THE RPTR STATES, HE HAS SEEN MARKED IMPROVEMENT IN ENGLISH PHRASEOLOGY AT MMMX, AND IF HE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER, WITH SOME OF THE MMMX CTLRS, COULD CONSIDER HIMSELF AT ANY NUMBER OF U.S. ARPTS. YET A CONCERN OF THE FLT CREW IS THE USE OF SPANISH WITH ALL OTHER REGIONAL CARRIERS. THE PLT STATED, THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR LACK OF LANGUAGE SKILL, THEY JUST DO NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON. IN THIS INCIDENT, DUE TO THE RELATIVELY CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RWY 23L AND 23R, HE JUST WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE 'TAXI INTO POS' WITH THE PERCEIVED ALIGNMENT OF THE A320 ON SHORT FINAL. AS WAS PROVED, THERE WAS AN APPARENT INTRAFAC COORD BREAKDOWN FOR LNDG RWY ASSIGNMENT.

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.