Narrative:

These details indicate that; on this specific arrival into mexico city; ATC instructions were excessive; changed frequently; and hindered by a language difference causing confusion and stress to us during our arrival and landing. Upon contacting mexico approach during our descent into the terminal area; we were given instructions to proceed to the slm VOR for arrival to runway 23. This was just short of the ptj VOR thus effecting a small shortcut turn. Short of the slm VOR; nearly abeam the field; we were given a clearance to proceed direct to smo VOR. This was a turn of almost 180 degrees. The controller tells us we are going to runway 5R. Within 60-90 seconds of this instruction; we were given a heading vector. The heading was nearly the same as the course to smo VOR that now we were rolling out on. The controller now gives us runway 5L. About 5-6 mi short of smo VOR; we are given a lower altitude and a heading to intercept the smo VOR 160 degree radial. This vector is another shortcut to the procedure. As soon as we roll out on the heading; another heading of about 20 degrees further left. Then a change to runway 5R. I make the remark on the radio that we have now been given the 'third runway change in 20 mi.' we can see the airport and ask for a visual approach. The controller replies with negative. We are given yet another heading and altitude and we are essentially on a base leg to the runway about 8 mi out. I sense we both are very heavily tasked with the abundance of instructions and I reply with 'unable; we will maintain 8800 ft and continue straight ahead.' the controller says negative; turn left and cleared for the approach. With the WX being VMC; and the field in sight; and the controller not working well with us; we make the turn and complete the landing on runway 5R. Throughout the many exchanges with the controller; we are requesting that instructions be repeated or verified because the controller has a very heavy accent and is speaking fast. I am trying to speak slowly to allow myself to be understood; but it seems as though he doesn't hear what I am saying. This is especially true when I declare that we are unable to make a turn to final. This situation put the 2 of us on the verge of task saturation. If this were further complicated with IMC; night; or fatigue it could easily have been too much. We tried several times to communicate our confusion. We asked for a visual approach which would have immediately taken the pressure off. We asked not to be turned toward the airport to allow us to catch up a little with the controller. All these attempts were not understood or at least not responded to. All of this took place in the matter of a few mins. The controller's reluctance to accommodate our requests to simplify our arrival and landing made the situation more dangerous than it needed to be. The controller's excessive use of clrncs to VOR stations; followed shortly by vectors in the same direction; created an elevated workload in the terminal area unnecessarily. I am particularly disturbed by the apparent unfamiliarity with the word 'unable.' at the completion of the flight; we both agreed that this was the most challenging arrival and landing we have had in many yrs. I believe it was completely unnecessary and I hold ATC accountable for the challenge and wonder why we were not given a visual approach or a turn out of traffic.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 CREW RELATES LANGUAGE AND HANDLING PROBS WITH APCH CTLR ON FIRST ARR AT MMMX.

Narrative: THESE DETAILS INDICATE THAT; ON THIS SPECIFIC ARR INTO MEXICO CITY; ATC INSTRUCTIONS WERE EXCESSIVE; CHANGED FREQUENTLY; AND HINDERED BY A LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE CAUSING CONFUSION AND STRESS TO US DURING OUR ARR AND LNDG. UPON CONTACTING MEXICO APCH DURING OUR DSCNT INTO THE TERMINAL AREA; WE WERE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED TO THE SLM VOR FOR ARR TO RWY 23. THIS WAS JUST SHORT OF THE PTJ VOR THUS EFFECTING A SMALL SHORTCUT TURN. SHORT OF THE SLM VOR; NEARLY ABEAM THE FIELD; WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO PROCEED DIRECT TO SMO VOR. THIS WAS A TURN OF ALMOST 180 DEGS. THE CTLR TELLS US WE ARE GOING TO RWY 5R. WITHIN 60-90 SECONDS OF THIS INSTRUCTION; WE WERE GIVEN A HDG VECTOR. THE HDG WAS NEARLY THE SAME AS THE COURSE TO SMO VOR THAT NOW WE WERE ROLLING OUT ON. THE CTLR NOW GIVES US RWY 5L. ABOUT 5-6 MI SHORT OF SMO VOR; WE ARE GIVEN A LOWER ALT AND A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE SMO VOR 160 DEG RADIAL. THIS VECTOR IS ANOTHER SHORTCUT TO THE PROC. AS SOON AS WE ROLL OUT ON THE HDG; ANOTHER HDG OF ABOUT 20 DEGS FURTHER L. THEN A CHANGE TO RWY 5R. I MAKE THE REMARK ON THE RADIO THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN GIVEN THE 'THIRD RWY CHANGE IN 20 MI.' WE CAN SEE THE ARPT AND ASK FOR A VISUAL APCH. THE CTLR REPLIES WITH NEGATIVE. WE ARE GIVEN YET ANOTHER HDG AND ALT AND WE ARE ESSENTIALLY ON A BASE LEG TO THE RWY ABOUT 8 MI OUT. I SENSE WE BOTH ARE VERY HEAVILY TASKED WITH THE ABUNDANCE OF INSTRUCTIONS AND I REPLY WITH 'UNABLE; WE WILL MAINTAIN 8800 FT AND CONTINUE STRAIGHT AHEAD.' THE CTLR SAYS NEGATIVE; TURN L AND CLRED FOR THE APCH. WITH THE WX BEING VMC; AND THE FIELD IN SIGHT; AND THE CTLR NOT WORKING WELL WITH US; WE MAKE THE TURN AND COMPLETE THE LNDG ON RWY 5R. THROUGHOUT THE MANY EXCHANGES WITH THE CTLR; WE ARE REQUESTING THAT INSTRUCTIONS BE REPEATED OR VERIFIED BECAUSE THE CTLR HAS A VERY HVY ACCENT AND IS SPEAKING FAST. I AM TRYING TO SPEAK SLOWLY TO ALLOW MYSELF TO BE UNDERSTOOD; BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH HE DOESN'T HEAR WHAT I AM SAYING. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN I DECLARE THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO MAKE A TURN TO FINAL. THIS SITUATION PUT THE 2 OF US ON THE VERGE OF TASK SATURATION. IF THIS WERE FURTHER COMPLICATED WITH IMC; NIGHT; OR FATIGUE IT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN TOO MUCH. WE TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO COMMUNICATE OUR CONFUSION. WE ASKED FOR A VISUAL APCH WHICH WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN THE PRESSURE OFF. WE ASKED NOT TO BE TURNED TOWARD THE ARPT TO ALLOW US TO CATCH UP A LITTLE WITH THE CTLR. ALL THESE ATTEMPTS WERE NOT UNDERSTOOD OR AT LEAST NOT RESPONDED TO. ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE IN THE MATTER OF A FEW MINS. THE CTLR'S RELUCTANCE TO ACCOMMODATE OUR REQUESTS TO SIMPLIFY OUR ARR AND LNDG MADE THE SITUATION MORE DANGEROUS THAN IT NEEDED TO BE. THE CTLR'S EXCESSIVE USE OF CLRNCS TO VOR STATIONS; FOLLOWED SHORTLY BY VECTORS IN THE SAME DIRECTION; CREATED AN ELEVATED WORKLOAD IN THE TERMINAL AREA UNNECESSARILY. I AM PARTICULARLY DISTURBED BY THE APPARENT UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE WORD 'UNABLE.' AT THE COMPLETION OF THE FLT; WE BOTH AGREED THAT THIS WAS THE MOST CHALLENGING ARR AND LNDG WE HAVE HAD IN MANY YRS. I BELIEVE IT WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY AND I HOLD ATC ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CHALLENGE AND WONDER WHY WE WERE NOT GIVEN A VISUAL APCH OR A TURN OUT OF TFC.

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.