Narrative:

Arrival to zspd via STAR and then radar vectors to final approach. We expected the ILS to runway 35 but ATIS advised to expect VOR DME runway 35 approach. We loaded the VOR approach into the secondary flight plan in the FMS; still expecting the ILS since it was not notamed out or reported out on ATIS. Approach control vectored us off of the STAR and when on an intercept vector instructed us to intercept the VOR DME runway 35 final approach course. We were being vectored at 600 meters (about 1800 ft) MSL (assigned by approach control). The charted FAF altitude on the VOR DME runway 35 approach was 900 meters (about 3000 ft). Being cleared for the non precision approach from an altitude that was below the charted altitude rendered our FMS approach procedure unusable and required manually flying this approach with unusual descent rates and non standard procedures. Upon reaching the FAF I started a normal descent but shortly thereafter shallowed out the vvi due to starting at a lower altitude at the FAF. At 1000 ft AGL; my first officer called 'stable' per our procedures as we descended down to minimums at 470 ft MSL at 400-500 FPM. Just inside 5 mi to touchdown; the tower made a comment about our 'minimum' altitude but since we were still 300-400 ft above minimums we didn't understand what they meant. We leveled off about 500-600 ft MSL and followed the PAPI down to a normal landing. We later determined that there was a stepdown fix on the final approach that we did not honor. The fix was supposed to be crossed at 1610 ft; we crossed it at about 1200 ft. The fix was on the VOR DME runway 35 chart but I didn't notice it and didn't fly the airplane in a way to comply with it. If we had been vectored in at the proper altitude for the VOR approach; the procedures I used would have complied with the crossing altitude; or we could have used the FMS to fly an RNAV approach using vertical navigation which would have also complied with the altitude restr. Shanghai approach control should never clear an airplane for a non precision approach at a random altitude below that charted for the approach. This airport is known for assigning several different altitudes when vectoring airplanes for ILS approachs but this is acceptable because the airplane can intercept the electronic GS from any altitude. A non precision approach; however; must begin at the FAF charted altitude. Supplemental information from acn 759051: FMS database out of date; aircraft released by MEL with consequences to crew of having to xchk and verify ground based navaids and distance on STAR and IAP. Normal procedures call for the use of vertical and lateral navigation by FMS with autoplt. Manual VOR lateral navigation and manual V/south through the fcp were used for the approach whereas navigation and prof through the FMS were initially briefed. PF started descent to stepdown altitude of 1610 ft at prior to MDA of 470 ft. Descent gradient was too great and before correction the aircraft descended below the stepdown fix altitude. As crew was correcting pudong tower advised crew that they were below approach altitude. At that point aircraft was inside stepdown fix altitude and continued descent to MDA and subsequent landing accomplished uneventfully. Nothing further was received from pudong concerning this. Crew being unsure of type of approach they would receive caused less than thorough approach brief. Deviation from brief once in the approach environment was not clarified well enough and rebrief missed change in method of lateral and vertical navigation. Both PF and pm didn't xchk approach plates well enough. Crew also assumed an eventual visual clearance because of the WX conditions and prior clrncs of preceding aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CREW APCHING ZSPD WAS CLRED FOR A VOR/DME 35 APCH BUT VECTORED BELOW INITIAL APCH ALT. ACFT DESCENDED EARLY AND MISSED THE STEP DOWN FIX ALT.

Narrative: ARR TO ZSPD VIA STAR AND THEN RADAR VECTORS TO FINAL APCH. WE EXPECTED THE ILS TO RWY 35 BUT ATIS ADVISED TO EXPECT VOR DME RWY 35 APCH. WE LOADED THE VOR APCH INTO THE SECONDARY FLT PLAN IN THE FMS; STILL EXPECTING THE ILS SINCE IT WAS NOT NOTAMED OUT OR RPTED OUT ON ATIS. APCH CTL VECTORED US OFF OF THE STAR AND WHEN ON AN INTERCEPT VECTOR INSTRUCTED US TO INTERCEPT THE VOR DME RWY 35 FINAL APCH COURSE. WE WERE BEING VECTORED AT 600 METERS (ABOUT 1800 FT) MSL (ASSIGNED BY APCH CTL). THE CHARTED FAF ALT ON THE VOR DME RWY 35 APCH WAS 900 METERS (ABOUT 3000 FT). BEING CLRED FOR THE NON PRECISION APCH FROM AN ALT THAT WAS BELOW THE CHARTED ALT RENDERED OUR FMS APCH PROC UNUSABLE AND REQUIRED MANUALLY FLYING THIS APCH WITH UNUSUAL DSCNT RATES AND NON STANDARD PROCS. UPON REACHING THE FAF I STARTED A NORMAL DSCNT BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER SHALLOWED OUT THE VVI DUE TO STARTING AT A LOWER ALT AT THE FAF. AT 1000 FT AGL; MY FO CALLED 'STABLE' PER OUR PROCS AS WE DSNDED DOWN TO MINIMUMS AT 470 FT MSL AT 400-500 FPM. JUST INSIDE 5 MI TO TOUCHDOWN; THE TWR MADE A COMMENT ABOUT OUR 'MINIMUM' ALT BUT SINCE WE WERE STILL 300-400 FT ABOVE MINIMUMS WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEANT. WE LEVELED OFF ABOUT 500-600 FT MSL AND FOLLOWED THE PAPI DOWN TO A NORMAL LNDG. WE LATER DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A STEPDOWN FIX ON THE FINAL APCH THAT WE DID NOT HONOR. THE FIX WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CROSSED AT 1610 FT; WE CROSSED IT AT ABOUT 1200 FT. THE FIX WAS ON THE VOR DME RWY 35 CHART BUT I DIDN'T NOTICE IT AND DIDN'T FLY THE AIRPLANE IN A WAY TO COMPLY WITH IT. IF WE HAD BEEN VECTORED IN AT THE PROPER ALT FOR THE VOR APCH; THE PROCS I USED WOULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE XING ALT; OR WE COULD HAVE USED THE FMS TO FLY AN RNAV APCH USING VERT NAV WHICH WOULD HAVE ALSO COMPLIED WITH THE ALT RESTR. SHANGHAI APCH CTL SHOULD NEVER CLR AN AIRPLANE FOR A NON PRECISION APCH AT A RANDOM ALT BELOW THAT CHARTED FOR THE APCH. THIS ARPT IS KNOWN FOR ASSIGNING SEVERAL DIFFERENT ALTS WHEN VECTORING AIRPLANES FOR ILS APCHS BUT THIS IS ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE AIRPLANE CAN INTERCEPT THE ELECTRONIC GS FROM ANY ALT. A NON PRECISION APCH; HOWEVER; MUST BEGIN AT THE FAF CHARTED ALT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 759051: FMS DATABASE OUT OF DATE; ACFT RELEASED BY MEL WITH CONSEQUENCES TO CREW OF HAVING TO XCHK AND VERIFY GND BASED NAVAIDS AND DISTANCE ON STAR AND IAP. NORMAL PROCS CALL FOR THE USE OF VERT AND LATERAL NAV BY FMS WITH AUTOPLT. MANUAL VOR LATERAL NAV AND MANUAL V/S THROUGH THE FCP WERE USED FOR THE APCH WHEREAS NAV AND PROF THROUGH THE FMS WERE INITIALLY BRIEFED. PF STARTED DSCNT TO STEPDOWN ALT OF 1610 FT AT PRIOR TO MDA OF 470 FT. DSCNT GRADIENT WAS TOO GREAT AND BEFORE CORRECTION THE ACFT DSNDED BELOW THE STEPDOWN FIX ALT. AS CREW WAS CORRECTING PUDONG TWR ADVISED CREW THAT THEY WERE BELOW APCH ALT. AT THAT POINT ACFT WAS INSIDE STEPDOWN FIX ALT AND CONTINUED DSCNT TO MDA AND SUBSEQUENT LNDG ACCOMPLISHED UNEVENTFULLY. NOTHING FURTHER WAS RECEIVED FROM PUDONG CONCERNING THIS. CREW BEING UNSURE OF TYPE OF APCH THEY WOULD RECEIVE CAUSED LESS THAN THOROUGH APCH BRIEF. DEV FROM BRIEF ONCE IN THE APCH ENVIRONMENT WAS NOT CLARIFIED WELL ENOUGH AND REBRIEF MISSED CHANGE IN METHOD OF LATERAL AND VERT NAV. BOTH PF AND PM DIDN'T XCHK APCH PLATES WELL ENOUGH. CREW ALSO ASSUMED AN EVENTUAL VISUAL CLRNC BECAUSE OF THE WX CONDITIONS AND PRIOR CLRNCS OF PRECEDING ACFT.

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.