Narrative:

I was relief pilot on flight. Forecast for ZZZZ1 contained a possibility of fog at our arrival time. Upon reaching the IAF of the arrival (psn) we were told to hold at FL370 because the field was below minimums. We informed dispatch and considered our options. We agreed with dispatch that ZZZZ was our best choice should we need to divert. It was a 40 min flight and the WX there was visibility of 6000 M. During the descent we received an ACARS message from dispatch stating 'ZZZZ below target minimums' and giving the WX as visibility 1000 M; R15/1500. This message confused us since we had never heard the term 'target' minimums and since the WX as given was not below the minimums for the ILS 15 (which was 800 M visibility). We continued the arrival while trying to query the controller for the field conditions. By this time the controller was seemingly over tasked because of many diverting aircraft and difficulties with the english language. We could not get any information from him. I then called operations at ZZZZ and asked them for the RVR for runway 15. After a 3-4 min delay; they said it was 1800 M. Several mins later a new ATIS was issued giving the RVR for runway 15 as 800 M. Shortly after this; the controller said the field was below minimums. We informed dispatch and realized that the closest alternate was ZZZZ2 and that we did not now have the fuel to get there. Therefore; the captain declared an emergency and the first officer informed the controller that we had to land immediately at ZZZZ runway 15. The controller at this point was extremely over tasked largely; I believe; because of language problems. It was very difficult for the first officer to get him to understand what we needed to do. Eventually; however; we were cleared to land on runway 15. The captain flew a land 2 autoland (the asa had downgraded en route due to a failed ILS receiver) on the ILS 15 CAT I approach. (ZZZZ has a CAT ii but it was OTS.) we saw the runway at 200 ft and landed uneventfully. Lessons learned: 1) language continues to be a problem. You simply cannot expect controllers to be able to understand much more than just standard everyday verbiage. 2) WX forecasts are not as accurate nor are observations as timely as in other places. 3) we landed with approximately 7000 pounds of fuel. Had the captain not decided to divert with 3000 more pounds than our bingo fuel; we would have been into our reserve fuel when we landed. We burned much more fuel than expected because the controller slowed us very early and then gave us extended vectors. It doesn't pay to cut it too close.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767-300ER CREW DIVERTED FOR WX FROM ZZZZ1 TO ZZZZ2 WHERE THE WX WAS ALSO BELOW MINIMUMS. THEY DECLARED A FUEL EMER AND LANDED WITH WX RPTED BELOW MINIMUMS.

Narrative: I WAS RELIEF PLT ON FLT. FORECAST FOR ZZZZ1 CONTAINED A POSSIBILITY OF FOG AT OUR ARR TIME. UPON REACHING THE IAF OF THE ARR (PSN) WE WERE TOLD TO HOLD AT FL370 BECAUSE THE FIELD WAS BELOW MINIMUMS. WE INFORMED DISPATCH AND CONSIDERED OUR OPTIONS. WE AGREED WITH DISPATCH THAT ZZZZ WAS OUR BEST CHOICE SHOULD WE NEED TO DIVERT. IT WAS A 40 MIN FLT AND THE WX THERE WAS VISIBILITY OF 6000 M. DURING THE DSCNT WE RECEIVED AN ACARS MESSAGE FROM DISPATCH STATING 'ZZZZ BELOW TARGET MINIMUMS' AND GIVING THE WX AS VISIBILITY 1000 M; R15/1500. THIS MESSAGE CONFUSED US SINCE WE HAD NEVER HEARD THE TERM 'TARGET' MINIMUMS AND SINCE THE WX AS GIVEN WAS NOT BELOW THE MINIMUMS FOR THE ILS 15 (WHICH WAS 800 M VISIBILITY). WE CONTINUED THE ARR WHILE TRYING TO QUERY THE CTLR FOR THE FIELD CONDITIONS. BY THIS TIME THE CTLR WAS SEEMINGLY OVER TASKED BECAUSE OF MANY DIVERTING ACFT AND DIFFICULTIES WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. WE COULD NOT GET ANY INFO FROM HIM. I THEN CALLED OPS AT ZZZZ AND ASKED THEM FOR THE RVR FOR RWY 15. AFTER A 3-4 MIN DELAY; THEY SAID IT WAS 1800 M. SEVERAL MINS LATER A NEW ATIS WAS ISSUED GIVING THE RVR FOR RWY 15 AS 800 M. SHORTLY AFTER THIS; THE CTLR SAID THE FIELD WAS BELOW MINIMUMS. WE INFORMED DISPATCH AND REALIZED THAT THE CLOSEST ALTERNATE WAS ZZZZ2 AND THAT WE DID NOT NOW HAVE THE FUEL TO GET THERE. THEREFORE; THE CAPT DECLARED AN EMER AND THE FO INFORMED THE CTLR THAT WE HAD TO LAND IMMEDIATELY AT ZZZZ RWY 15. THE CTLR AT THIS POINT WAS EXTREMELY OVER TASKED LARGELY; I BELIEVE; BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE PROBS. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE FO TO GET HIM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO. EVENTUALLY; HOWEVER; WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 15. THE CAPT FLEW A LAND 2 AUTOLAND (THE ASA HAD DOWNGRADED ENRTE DUE TO A FAILED ILS RECEIVER) ON THE ILS 15 CAT I APCH. (ZZZZ HAS A CAT II BUT IT WAS OTS.) WE SAW THE RWY AT 200 FT AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. LESSONS LEARNED: 1) LANGUAGE CONTINUES TO BE A PROB. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT EXPECT CTLRS TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND MUCH MORE THAN JUST STANDARD EVERYDAY VERBIAGE. 2) WX FORECASTS ARE NOT AS ACCURATE NOR ARE OBSERVATIONS AS TIMELY AS IN OTHER PLACES. 3) WE LANDED WITH APPROX 7000 LBS OF FUEL. HAD THE CAPT NOT DECIDED TO DIVERT WITH 3000 MORE LBS THAN OUR BINGO FUEL; WE WOULD HAVE BEEN INTO OUR RESERVE FUEL WHEN WE LANDED. WE BURNED MUCH MORE FUEL THAN EXPECTED BECAUSE THE CTLR SLOWED US VERY EARLY AND THEN GAVE US EXTENDED VECTORS. IT DOESN'T PAY TO CUT IT TOO CLOSE.

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.