Narrative:

Flight was en route beijing (zbaa) to shanghai pudong (zspd). Flight was filed A593-wb direct pudong. ATIS advised landing runway 35 in use, so crew input and planned for vmb-11A arrival for runway 35 from filed position wb (on page of mar/xa/03). Almost directly overhead vmb VOR, having changed frequency to a new shanghai ATC controller who was difficult to understand, crew was advised to proceed via the vmb-11A. Since vmb-11A has different routing if flown from position vmb versus following A593 to wb, then picking up vmb-11A crew was uncertain as to which route to follow. Crew elected to fly routing vmb-11A from position vmb VOR though the crew had just flown over vmb. Crew immediately tried to confirm this was the routing the controller wanted. Some few mins of communication confusion due to language difficulty followed, and crew was unable to get satisfactory understandable confirmation of which routing to follow, at which point the controller asked us to verify our heading. Crew did so after which controller assigned direct headings to unambiguous position, no further confusion resulted, nor was the vmb-11A STAR mentioned anymore. Following routing instructions were uneventful from shanghai center. We are submitting this report simply because of the cockpit confusion that occurred as a result of the controller's ambiguous garbled modification of our initial routing to wb on A593. We believe we complied fully and properly with all routing, speed and altitude restrs as given to us by shanghai ATC and are unaware of any violations of any kind committed by the flight crew.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD11 CARGO FLT CREW COCKPIT CONFUSION CREATED BY LANGUAGE BARRIER AND CLRNC INTERP DURING A REROUTED CLRNC BY CTLR AT ZSHA, FO.

Narrative: FLT WAS ENRTE BEIJING (ZBAA) TO SHANGHAI PUDONG (ZSPD). FLT WAS FILED A593-WB DIRECT PUDONG. ATIS ADVISED LNDG RWY 35 IN USE, SO CREW INPUT AND PLANNED FOR VMB-11A ARR FOR RWY 35 FROM FILED POS WB (ON PAGE OF MAR/XA/03). ALMOST DIRECTLY OVERHEAD VMB VOR, HAVING CHANGED FREQ TO A NEW SHANGHAI ATC CTLR WHO WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, CREW WAS ADVISED TO PROCEED VIA THE VMB-11A. SINCE VMB-11A HAS DIFFERENT ROUTING IF FLOWN FROM POS VMB VERSUS FOLLOWING A593 TO WB, THEN PICKING UP VMB-11A CREW WAS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHICH RTE TO FOLLOW. CREW ELECTED TO FLY ROUTING VMB-11A FROM POS VMB VOR THOUGH THE CREW HAD JUST FLOWN OVER VMB. CREW IMMEDIATELY TRIED TO CONFIRM THIS WAS THE ROUTING THE CTLR WANTED. SOME FEW MINS OF COM CONFUSION DUE TO LANGUAGE DIFFICULTY FOLLOWED, AND CREW WAS UNABLE TO GET SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDABLE CONFIRMATION OF WHICH ROUTING TO FOLLOW, AT WHICH POINT THE CTLR ASKED US TO VERIFY OUR HEADING. CREW DID SO AFTER WHICH CTLR ASSIGNED DIRECT HEADINGS TO UNAMBIGUOUS POS, NO FURTHER CONFUSION RESULTED, NOR WAS THE VMB-11A STAR MENTIONED ANYMORE. FOLLOWING ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS WERE UNEVENTFUL FROM SHANGHAI CTR. WE ARE SUBMITTING THIS RPT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COCKPIT CONFUSION THAT OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE CTLR'S AMBIGUOUS GARBLED MODIFICATION OF OUR INITIAL ROUTING TO WB ON A593. WE BELIEVE WE COMPLIED FULLY AND PROPERLY WITH ALL ROUTING, SPD AND ALT RESTRS AS GIVEN TO US BY SHANGHAI ATC AND ARE UNAWARE OF ANY VIOLATIONS OF ANY KIND COMMITTED BY THE FLT CREW.

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.