Narrative:

This report concerns an ATC communication error between our aircraft and mdsd control. It is important to mention at this point that mdsd decided to open their main runway (from a previous long-term closure) before the commercial chart company had the opportunity to update FMC databases or distribute an update to pilots. As a result; pilots had to get xerox copies of approach plates from operations and needed to build all approaches manually. The problem started upon entering mdsd airspace. The ATC for center was overwhelmed. There was nonstop talking on the radios. We continually asked center for descent and each time were told to stand by. ATC finally allowed our descent 30 miles past our required descent point. As a result; we were required to use the speed brake for the entire descent. The center controller was behind the aircraft in his sector. Center finally switched us over to approach control. This controller was also overwhelmed and ultimately proved to be behind the aircraft in his sector as well. The controller acknowledged our switchover to him and then either he or other aircraft talked nonstop. We were proceeding into the santo domingo VOR on an airway per the flight plan. We were expecting the ILS to runway 17 since it was not notamed out of service. The mdsd ATIS was inoperative. Finally the controller stated the following: air carrier X; cleared present position to ulopa for the VOR DME 17 approach. We acknowledged roger-cleared present position to ulopa for the VOR DME 17 approach. This was different than the expected ILS to runway 17. We entered xxxxx into the FMC only to determine that ulopa did not exist in the database. Remember that the databases were incorrect due to the mdsd airport authority's decision to open the airport before the updated FMC databases or approach plates. Therefore; we built ulopa manually and input it into the FMC. At this point we determined that we were on top of ulopa and that the controller had cleared us to a point that we were already on top of. Our knee jerk reaction was to turn inbound on the final inbound course from ulopa (the IAF for the approach) to the airport runway. The following information is pertinent: 1) we were still trying to descend due to center starting our descent entirely too late. The altitude at ulopa was charted at 3000 ft. We were at 7000 ft and still descending. 2) the controller did not clear us for the approach. 3) the controller or other aircraft talked nonstop. We could not make a transmission to ask ATC what his intentions were. 4) we were trying to fly an approach that the controller threw into our lap with zero lead time. About 2 miles from the airport; we were still at 3000 ft. We could not talk to ATC and we were not in a position to land safely. Our plan was to execute the published missed approach. At this point; the ATC controller figured out something wasn't correct and finally talked to us and stated the following: 'air carrier X; turn left to a heading of 090 degrees. You were cleared for the VOR DME 17 approach.' we responded that he did not clear us for the approach and that he was talking nonstop preventing us from asking clarification. We did tell him that we had the airport in sight and that we could execute a visual approach left traffic from the assigned heading of 090 degrees. He cleared us for a visual approach left traffic. The flight was uneventful from this point.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MDSD ATC; TRACON and Tower controllers were behind a bank of arriving aircraft and permitted an air carrier to cross the MDSD airport at 3000 FT. The aircraft's FMS database did not have an approach to a newly open runway complicating the approach.

Narrative: This report concerns an ATC communication error between our aircraft and MDSD Control. It is important to mention at this point that MDSD decided to open their main runway (from a previous long-term closure) before the commercial chart company had the opportunity to update FMC databases or distribute an update to pilots. As a result; pilots had to get Xerox copies of approach plates from Operations and needed to build all approaches manually. The problem started upon entering MDSD airspace. The ATC for Center was overwhelmed. There was nonstop talking on the radios. We continually asked Center for descent and each time were told to stand by. ATC finally allowed our descent 30 miles past our required descent point. As a result; we were required to use the speed brake for the entire descent. The Center Controller was behind the aircraft in his sector. Center finally switched us over to Approach Control. This controller was also overwhelmed and ultimately proved to be behind the aircraft in his sector as well. The Controller acknowledged our switchover to him and then either he or other aircraft talked nonstop. We were proceeding into the Santo Domingo VOR on an airway per the flight plan. We were expecting the ILS to Runway 17 since it was NOT NOTAMed out of service. The MDSD ATIS was inoperative. Finally the Controller stated the following: Air Carrier X; cleared present position to ULOPA for the VOR DME 17 approach. We acknowledged roger-cleared present position to ULOPA for the VOR DME 17 Approach. This was different than the expected ILS to Runway 17. We entered XXXXX into the FMC only to determine that ULOPA did not exist in the database. Remember that the databases were incorrect due to the MDSD Airport Authority's decision to open the airport before the updated FMC databases or approach plates. Therefore; we built ULOPA manually and input it into the FMC. At this point we determined that we were on top of ULOPA and that the Controller had cleared us to a point that we were already on top of. Our knee jerk reaction was to turn inbound on the final inbound course from ULOPA (the IAF for the approach) to the airport runway. The following information is pertinent: 1) we were still trying to descend due to Center starting our descent entirely too late. The altitude at ULOPA was charted at 3000 FT. We were at 7000 FT and still descending. 2) The Controller did not clear us for the approach. 3) The Controller or other aircraft talked nonstop. We could not make a transmission to ask ATC what his intentions were. 4) We were trying to fly an approach that the Controller threw into our lap with zero lead time. About 2 miles from the airport; we were still at 3000 FT. We could not talk to ATC and we were not in a position to land safely. Our plan was to execute the published missed approach. At this point; the ATC Controller figured out something wasn't correct and finally talked to us and stated the following: 'Air Carrier X; turn left to a heading of 090 degrees. You were cleared for the VOR DME 17 Approach.' We responded that he did not clear us for the approach and that he was talking nonstop preventing us from asking clarification. We did tell him that we had the airport in sight and that we could execute a visual approach left traffic from the assigned heading of 090 degrees. He cleared us for a visual approach left traffic. The flight was uneventful from this point.

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.