Narrative:

On a flight from teb to mman. We received numerous updates regarding the WX via afis communication. The conditions were VFR. Before descent; we briefed the approach in anticipation of a full VOR DME #1 to runway 20. This approach entailed a teardrop course reversal; which had an 8 mile outbound and an 8 mile inbound leg. We briefed the rising terrain and selected egpws on our displays. After being handed off to monterrey approach control; we started experiencing difficulty understanding the controller. He initially spoke to us in spanish. The ATIS frequency was not working so we were given the ATIS verbally. Close in on the approach; we were issued a heading to intercept the final approach course to VOR DME #3; runway 20; a different approach than we had briefed and programmed. This necessitated reprogramming the FMS and expediting the descent. This new approach was a radar vectored approach to the final approach course. Therefore; we did not have the extra 16 miles to descend; as stated earlier; for the original expected approach. At the missed approach point we executed a missed approach. In my flying experience I had never encountered a missed approach procedure which referred you to another 'approach plate' to view the missed approach procedure for the approach you were currently executing. (Mman VOR DME #3 to runway 20 refers you to VOR DME #1 runway 20 for the missed approach altitude). We were recleared onto the original approach VOR DME #3 to runway 20 and landed at mman. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter emphasized that the problem was more the result of planning for one specific approach and then being cleared for a technically much different one when it was really too late to prepare properly. Had the language problem not existed; he feels they would have instead refused the approach and requested a delay to prepare. The underlying problem in either case was the unusual situation regarding the map procedure being depicted on a different chart and the multiple versions of the VOR approach to runway 20. From previous investigation it is known that FMS databases are restricted to only a single approach of a given type to a particular runway. The result is a discrepancy between the terminology on the approach charts (ie runway 20 VOR/DME 1 and runway 20 VOR/DME 3) and that which is presented to the flight crew by the FMS. Therein the basic 'VOR' approach to runway 20 must be customized by the proper selection of transitions and maps. The ability to accurately do so under duress of severely limited time is highly questionable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LANGUAGE BARRIERS WITH APCH CTL; CONFUSING AND UNORTHODOX CHARTAGE; AND FMS DATABASE COMPLEXITIES CONSPIRE TO FORCE F2TH FLC TO EXECUTE MISSED APCH ON VOR APCH TO MMAN. MAP TURNS OUT TO BE EQUALLY CONFUSING.

Narrative: ON A FLT FROM TEB TO MMAN. WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS UPDATES REGARDING THE WX VIA AFIS COM. THE CONDITIONS WERE VFR. BEFORE DSCNT; WE BRIEFED THE APCH IN ANTICIPATION OF A FULL VOR DME #1 TO RWY 20. THIS APCH ENTAILED A TEARDROP COURSE REVERSAL; WHICH HAD AN 8 MILE OUTBOUND AND AN 8 MILE INBOUND LEG. WE BRIEFED THE RISING TERRAIN AND SELECTED EGPWS ON OUR DISPLAYS. AFTER BEING HANDED OFF TO MONTERREY APCH CTL; WE STARTED EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE CTLR. HE INITIALLY SPOKE TO US IN SPANISH. THE ATIS FREQ WAS NOT WORKING SO WE WERE GIVEN THE ATIS VERBALLY. CLOSE IN ON THE APCH; WE WERE ISSUED A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE TO VOR DME #3; RWY 20; A DIFFERENT APCH THAN WE HAD BRIEFED AND PROGRAMMED. THIS NECESSITATED REPROGRAMMING THE FMS AND EXPEDITING THE DSCNT. THIS NEW APCH WAS A RADAR VECTORED APCH TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE. THEREFORE; WE DID NOT HAVE THE EXTRA 16 MILES TO DSND; AS STATED EARLIER; FOR THE ORIGINAL EXPECTED APCH. AT THE MISSED APCH POINT WE EXECUTED A MISSED APCH. IN MY FLYING EXPERIENCE I HAD NEVER ENCOUNTERED A MISSED APCH PROCEDURE WHICH REFERRED YOU TO ANOTHER 'APCH PLATE' TO VIEW THE MISSED APCH PROC FOR THE APCH YOU WERE CURRENTLY EXECUTING. (MMAN VOR DME #3 TO RWY 20 REFERS YOU TO VOR DME #1 RWY 20 FOR THE MISSED APCH ALT). WE WERE RECLEARED ONTO THE ORIGINAL APCH VOR DME #3 TO RWY 20 AND LANDED AT MMAN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR EMPHASIZED THAT THE PROB WAS MORE THE RESULT OF PLANNING FOR ONE SPECIFIC APCH AND THEN BEING CLRED FOR A TECHNICALLY MUCH DIFFERENT ONE WHEN IT WAS REALLY TOO LATE TO PREPARE PROPERLY. HAD THE LANGUAGE PROB NOT EXISTED; HE FEELS THEY WOULD HAVE INSTEAD REFUSED THE APCH AND REQUESTED A DELAY TO PREPARE. THE UNDERLYING PROB IN EITHER CASE WAS THE UNUSUAL SIT REGARDING THE MAP PROC BEING DEPICTED ON A DIFFERENT CHART AND THE MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE VOR APCH TO RWY 20. FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION IT IS KNOWN THAT FMS DATABASES ARE RESTRICTED TO ONLY A SINGLE APCH OF A GIVEN TYPE TO A PARTICULAR RWY. THE RESULT IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TERMINOLOGY ON THE APCH CHARTS (IE RWY 20 VOR/DME 1 AND RWY 20 VOR/DME 3) AND THAT WHICH IS PRESENTED TO THE FLC BY THE FMS. THEREIN THE BASIC 'VOR' APCH TO RWY 20 MUST BE CUSTOMIZED BY THE PROPER SELECTION OF TRANSITIONS AND MAPS. THE ABILITY TO ACCURATELY DO SO UNDER DURESS OF SEVERELY LIMITED TIME IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.