Narrative:

SA3A arrival assigned which has expected altitude restrs approaching tnn VOR on A577 at menon fix; FL290. Well prior to reaching those expected restr points; clearance direct to tnn was received which meant that we would not be going over menon. After the direct clearance was received; the crew heard 'descend and maintain FL290 'when required.'' crew read back 'descend FL290 pilot's discretion.' nothing was challenged by ATC. It was only after the fact; in post-analysis; that we determined that those words must have been meant by the controller; to be a descent restrs some distance short of the tnn VOR. That was not apparent to us at the time. As we approached tnn VOR; the female controller stated that we had 'missed our descent;' and to descend to FL200 at tnn. That restr was understood and complied with. This crew has been to taipei many times and it is well known that the female chinese controllers are extremely difficult to understand. If they are asked to repeat something; they generally speak faster than the first time; and they do not always listen to readbacks very well. Additionally; variations from published procedures are significantly problematic in taiwan. Their structure is complex with many different variations; and pronunciation of chinese words is very unnatural; and to further aggravate the situation; the new company charts do not list the arrival FMS codings on the headers of the paper charts themselves; which requires crews to 'study' all arrs in order to be able to identify which one applies. For example; the sigang arrival has 4 variants called 'SA1B; SA1C; SA3A; SA3B;' and that is 4 of 19 arrs. Company needs to put those FMS codings on the header of charts. In addition; company 'sometimes' uses ball notes to remove the arrival restrs which are easy to miss in the approach environment. That is ok in the en route environment but problematic on terminal area procedures. The cause of this occurrence was the crew not hearing what the controller told us; and the controller failing to hear the crew's response. In addition; the use of non-ICAO standard phraseology by the controller did not cue the crew to a discrepancy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLIGHT CREW APPARENTLY MISSES CROSSING RESTRICTION ON SA3A ARRIVAL TO RCTP. CONTROLLER INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT CLEAR AND THE CREW READBACK DOES NOT ELICIT A RESPONSE. REPORTER ALSO LAMENTS LAYOUT OF COMMERCIAL CHARTS.

Narrative: SA3A ARR ASSIGNED WHICH HAS EXPECTED ALT RESTRS APCHING TNN VOR ON A577 AT MENON FIX; FL290. WELL PRIOR TO REACHING THOSE EXPECTED RESTR POINTS; CLRNC DIRECT TO TNN WAS RECEIVED WHICH MEANT THAT WE WOULD NOT BE GOING OVER MENON. AFTER THE DIRECT CLRNC WAS RECEIVED; THE CREW HEARD 'DSND AND MAINTAIN FL290 'WHEN REQUIRED.'' CREW READ BACK 'DSND FL290 PLT'S DISCRETION.' NOTHING WAS CHALLENGED BY ATC. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE FACT; IN POST-ANALYSIS; THAT WE DETERMINED THAT THOSE WORDS MUST HAVE BEEN MEANT BY THE CTLR; TO BE A DSCNT RESTRS SOME DISTANCE SHORT OF THE TNN VOR. THAT WAS NOT APPARENT TO US AT THE TIME. AS WE APCHED TNN VOR; THE FEMALE CTLR STATED THAT WE HAD 'MISSED OUR DSCNT;' AND TO DSND TO FL200 AT TNN. THAT RESTR WAS UNDERSTOOD AND COMPLIED WITH. THIS CREW HAS BEEN TO TAIPEI MANY TIMES AND IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE FEMALE CHINESE CTLRS ARE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. IF THEY ARE ASKED TO REPEAT SOMETHING; THEY GENERALLY SPEAK FASTER THAN THE FIRST TIME; AND THEY DO NOT ALWAYS LISTEN TO READBACKS VERY WELL. ADDITIONALLY; VARIATIONS FROM PUBLISHED PROCS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC IN TAIWAN. THEIR STRUCTURE IS COMPLEX WITH MANY DIFFERENT VARIATIONS; AND PRONUNCIATION OF CHINESE WORDS IS VERY UNNATURAL; AND TO FURTHER AGGRAVATE THE SITUATION; THE NEW COMPANY CHARTS DO NOT LIST THE ARR FMS CODINGS ON THE HEADERS OF THE PAPER CHARTS THEMSELVES; WHICH REQUIRES CREWS TO 'STUDY' ALL ARRS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO IDENT WHICH ONE APPLIES. FOR EXAMPLE; THE SIGANG ARR HAS 4 VARIANTS CALLED 'SA1B; SA1C; SA3A; SA3B;' AND THAT IS 4 OF 19 ARRS. COMPANY NEEDS TO PUT THOSE FMS CODINGS ON THE HEADER OF CHARTS. IN ADDITION; COMPANY 'SOMETIMES' USES BALL NOTES TO REMOVE THE ARR RESTRS WHICH ARE EASY TO MISS IN THE APCH ENVIRONMENT. THAT IS OK IN THE ENRTE ENVIRONMENT BUT PROBLEMATIC ON TERMINAL AREA PROCS. THE CAUSE OF THIS OCCURRENCE WAS THE CREW NOT HEARING WHAT THE CTLR TOLD US; AND THE CTLR FAILING TO HEAR THE CREW'S RESPONSE. IN ADDITION; THE USE OF NON-ICAO STANDARD PHRASEOLOGY BY THE CTLR DID NOT CUE THE CREW TO A DISCREPANCY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.