Narrative:

Upon turnover from center to gdl approach at 12000 ft MSL; descending; the approach controller said to intercept the 107 degree radial gdl for the VOR-DME runway 28 and track inbound to gdl. We re-briefed and reset the FMS for such since we were set up for runway 10 ILS as indicated from the gdl ATIS. At that point we were too high; fast; and unconfigured (descending to 9000 ft MSL) to safely conduct the approach in my opinion. While in the middle of determining this; the approach controller gave a new clearance after we intercepted the 107 degree radial of gdl. To intercept the runway 28 localizer. I then asked if we are now doing the runway 28 localizer or what? He then replied; you are now doing the ILS runway 28. Another change. I then requested a r-hand 360 degree turn due to a thunderstorm to the left side which might cause a problem to turn that way; we were above GS; needed to slow down to configure; and lose altitude due to the last min runway changes/approachs. That was approved and a new lower altitude was also given to us 7000 ft MSL. 90 degrees into the right turn; the controller asked us if we were turning to heading 360 degrees and then I said 'no' we were in a 360 degree turn to orbit for speed reduction and to get down. He advised us to climb back up to 9000 ft MSL due to terrain. We were VMC above the tops at that point (at 8800 ft MSL). We climbed back 200 ft to 9000 ft MSL. We completed the 360 degree turn with no terrain warnings at all from GPWS or indications from the radar altimeter. The controller once again decided to change runways again back to runway 10 that we were originally going to do; which was also reported on the ATIS and we re-setup for runway 10 ILS. Language was definitely a barrier between the controller and crew. The change to a runway that was not being advertised on the ATIS as being used while we were at an altitude more suitable for the original runway 10 didn't help for a reasonable descent to the newly assigned runway 28 by the controller. The changes to what type of approach VOR-DME runway 28 to ILS runway 28 on top of it all added to an unreasonable workload to the crew on top of that. There seemed to be no other aircraft in the area also. At least we seemed to be the only one on the radio. For something so simple; it was made extremely hard by the controller changing runways and multiple approachs in such a short period. The language barrier with english as a second language was definitely in play here. It helped lead into a possible CFIT as advised by the controller when he told us to climb back to 9000 ft MSL due to terrain. My controller approved request for a right 360 degree turn for speed reduction and to lose altitude wasn't understood obviously after the controller gave us a new lower altitude 7000 ft MSL then later saw us on his screen in the r-hand turn and asked us if we were turning to heading 360 degrees followed by a command for us to climb back to 9000 ft MSL for terrain by the controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LANGUAGE BARRIER; TSTMS AND MULTIPLE RWY AND APCH CHANGES CLOSE IN TO THE ARPT RESULTS IN CONFUSION AND POSSIBLE CFIT INCIDENT.

Narrative: UPON TURNOVER FROM CTR TO GDL APCH AT 12000 FT MSL; DSNDING; THE APCH CTLR SAID TO INTERCEPT THE 107 DEG RADIAL GDL FOR THE VOR-DME RWY 28 AND TRACK INBOUND TO GDL. WE RE-BRIEFED AND RESET THE FMS FOR SUCH SINCE WE WERE SET UP FOR RWY 10 ILS AS INDICATED FROM THE GDL ATIS. AT THAT POINT WE WERE TOO HIGH; FAST; AND UNCONFIGURED (DSNDING TO 9000 FT MSL) TO SAFELY CONDUCT THE APCH IN MY OPINION. WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF DETERMINING THIS; THE APCH CTLR GAVE A NEW CLRNC AFTER WE INTERCEPTED THE 107 DEG RADIAL OF GDL. TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 28 LOC. I THEN ASKED IF WE ARE NOW DOING THE RWY 28 LOC OR WHAT? HE THEN REPLIED; YOU ARE NOW DOING THE ILS RWY 28. ANOTHER CHANGE. I THEN REQUESTED A R-HAND 360 DEG TURN DUE TO A TSTM TO THE L SIDE WHICH MIGHT CAUSE A PROB TO TURN THAT WAY; WE WERE ABOVE GS; NEEDED TO SLOW DOWN TO CONFIGURE; AND LOSE ALT DUE TO THE LAST MIN RWY CHANGES/APCHS. THAT WAS APPROVED AND A NEW LOWER ALT WAS ALSO GIVEN TO US 7000 FT MSL. 90 DEGS INTO THE R TURN; THE CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE TURNING TO HDG 360 DEGS AND THEN I SAID 'NO' WE WERE IN A 360 DEG TURN TO ORBIT FOR SPD REDUCTION AND TO GET DOWN. HE ADVISED US TO CLB BACK UP TO 9000 FT MSL DUE TO TERRAIN. WE WERE VMC ABOVE THE TOPS AT THAT POINT (AT 8800 FT MSL). WE CLBED BACK 200 FT TO 9000 FT MSL. WE COMPLETED THE 360 DEG TURN WITH NO TERRAIN WARNINGS AT ALL FROM GPWS OR INDICATIONS FROM THE RADAR ALTIMETER. THE CTLR ONCE AGAIN DECIDED TO CHANGE RWYS AGAIN BACK TO RWY 10 THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY GOING TO DO; WHICH WAS ALSO RPTED ON THE ATIS AND WE RE-SETUP FOR RWY 10 ILS. LANGUAGE WAS DEFINITELY A BARRIER BETWEEN THE CTLR AND CREW. THE CHANGE TO A RWY THAT WAS NOT BEING ADVERTISED ON THE ATIS AS BEING USED WHILE WE WERE AT AN ALT MORE SUITABLE FOR THE ORIGINAL RWY 10 DIDN'T HELP FOR A REASONABLE DSCNT TO THE NEWLY ASSIGNED RWY 28 BY THE CTLR. THE CHANGES TO WHAT TYPE OF APCH VOR-DME RWY 28 TO ILS RWY 28 ON TOP OF IT ALL ADDED TO AN UNREASONABLE WORKLOAD TO THE CREW ON TOP OF THAT. THERE SEEMED TO BE NO OTHER ACFT IN THE AREA ALSO. AT LEAST WE SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY ONE ON THE RADIO. FOR SOMETHING SO SIMPLE; IT WAS MADE EXTREMELY HARD BY THE CTLR CHANGING RWYS AND MULTIPLE APCHS IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD. THE LANGUAGE BARRIER WITH ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE WAS DEFINITELY IN PLAY HERE. IT HELPED LEAD INTO A POSSIBLE CFIT AS ADVISED BY THE CTLR WHEN HE TOLD US TO CLB BACK TO 9000 FT MSL DUE TO TERRAIN. MY CTLR APPROVED REQUEST FOR A R 360 DEG TURN FOR SPD REDUCTION AND TO LOSE ALT WASN'T UNDERSTOOD OBVIOUSLY AFTER THE CTLR GAVE US A NEW LOWER ALT 7000 FT MSL THEN LATER SAW US ON HIS SCREEN IN THE R-HAND TURN AND ASKED US IF WE WERE TURNING TO HDG 360 DEGS FOLLOWED BY A COMMAND FOR US TO CLB BACK TO 9000 FT MSL FOR TERRAIN BY THE CTLR.

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.