Narrative:

As captain we departed to sbgl. First officer had come in earlier and was already tired from [a previous] long flight with little rest (reserve first officer). After flying over 8 hrs the sbgl weather fell below landing limits and sbgl was closed. [We made] several attempts to communicate with dispatch in a timely manner where very; very difficult with the use of ACARS and it poor coverage (no communication) and slow response. Needed some type of real time communication with our dispatcher in international flying (sat communication). After holding at tomkin intersection we advised ATC we needed to proceed to our alternate airport; ATC advised that we could not land at our alternate and that we needed to proceed to a different airport. We made several requests due to fuel requirements and that we are now getting low on fuel a need to go to our alternate; request still declined. ATC advised we now need to use a new airport. ATC english was very; very poor and started using our ATC identifier instead of recently adopted call sign. This increased task loading a lot. Being tight on fuel we left holding pattern en route to the new airport after checking and having commerical approach charts for the airport. Still trying to communicate with dispatch using ACARS about where we are going; again we needed real time communication (sat communication) and not the use on slow ACARS. ACARS works fine domestically as does the new call sign; but neither work internationally. The arrivals where not in the FMC and had to be built [into] them; which also increased task loading that much more. Also only an RNAV approach was available for runway in use and the 757/767 can not shoot RNAV approaches. The arrival to the new airport also took a much longer route than going direct. Once on ground the ramp was full so we had to wait on taxiway until a slot became open. While on the ground the ACARS would not work because of nocom just as we had off and on inflight; so we could not communicate with dispatch and they did not get our on and in times; and really had no idea where we landed for sure. I did have my personal cell that I used on the ground to talk with dispatch which they where very happy to hear from us. The contract ground personnel worked on the ground and also a freight carrier person came over to see if he could help us in anyway; both spoke very good english. After refueling 2 hrs on ground we departed for sbgl. We had a problem with ATC again and the commercial chart approach procedures did not match with ATC clearance and instructions. The commercial approach chart dated jan 10 and a NOTAM dated oct 09 neither matched ATC clearance. And again communications with ATC was very; very difficult not speaking good english and using ATC abbreviation call sign. The issues are poor communication with dispatch due poor ACARS coverage and time required to get an HF phone patch. Poor communications with ATC english and using a difficult to remember call sign. They will not answer the new company call sign all the time and the ATC abbreviation adds to your task loading!!! Commercial approach chart notams not matching up with ATC clearance and not matching up with FMC. ATC not allowing us to proceed to filed alternate or giving us an early warning our original alternate was not open to diversion. Install sat communication on long range international aircraft. Add more chart info to database on FMC. Use a call sign the whole world understands. All three of these things are safety issues and need to be addressed. When you cannot communicate going 8 NM a minute it does not take long for task loading to increase and things to go [to] hell quickly. I personally did not mind the new call sign until flying internationally where it just does not work and becomes a real safety issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767 Captain reported a difficult experience approaching SBGL/GIG after fog closed the airport. The difficulties cited were: no SATCOM with Company; poor/no ACARS; the filed alternate airport not available; poor language understanding; inaccurate charts and NOTAMs; and a call sign which was not continuously recognized by the Controllers.

Narrative: As Captain we departed to SBGL. First Officer had come in earlier and was already tired from [a previous] long flight with little rest (Reserve First Officer). After flying over 8 hrs the SBGL weather fell below landing limits and SBGL was closed. [We made] several attempts to communicate with Dispatch in a timely manner where very; very difficult with the use of ACARS and it poor coverage (NO COM) and slow response. Needed some type of real time communication with our Dispatcher in International flying (SAT COM). After holding at TOMKIN Intersection we advised ATC we needed to proceed to our alternate airport; ATC advised that we could not land at our alternate and that we needed to proceed to a different airport. We made several requests due to fuel requirements and that we are now getting low on fuel a need to go to our alternate; request still declined. ATC advised we now need to use a new airport. ATC English was very; very poor and started using our ATC identifier instead of recently adopted call sign. This increased task loading a lot. Being tight on fuel we left holding pattern en route to the new airport after checking and having commerical approach charts for the airport. Still trying to communicate with Dispatch using ACARS about where we are going; again we needed real time communication (SAT COM) and not the use on slow ACARS. ACARS works fine domestically as does the new call sign; but neither work internationally. The arrivals where not in the FMC and had to be built [into] them; which also increased task loading that much more. Also only an RNAV approach was available for runway in use and the 757/767 can not shoot RNAV approaches. The arrival to the new airport also took a much longer route than going direct. Once on ground the ramp was full so we had to wait on taxiway until a slot became open. While on the ground the ACARS would not work because of NOCOM just as we had off and on inflight; so we could not communicate with Dispatch and they did not get our ON and IN times; and really had no idea where we landed for sure. I did have my personal cell that I used on the ground to talk with Dispatch which they where very happy to hear from us. The Contract Ground personnel worked on the ground and also a freight carrier person came over to see if he could help us in anyway; both spoke very good English. After refueling 2 hrs on ground we departed for SBGL. We had a problem with ATC again and the Commercial Chart approach procedures did not match with ATC clearance and instructions. The Commercial Approach chart dated JAN 10 and a NOTAM dated OCT 09 neither matched ATC clearance. And again communications with ATC was very; very difficult not speaking good English and using ATC abbreviation call sign. The issues are poor Communication with Dispatch due poor ACARS coverage and time required to get an HF phone patch. Poor communications with ATC English and using a difficult to remember call sign. They will NOT answer the new company call sign all the time and the ATC abbreviation adds to your task loading!!! Commercial approach chart NOTAMs not matching up with ATC clearance and not matching up with FMC. ATC not allowing us to proceed to filed alternate or giving us an early warning our original alternate was not open to diversion. Install SAT COM on long range international aircraft. Add more Chart info to database on FMC. Use a call sign the whole WORLD understands. All three of these things are SAFETY issues and need to be addressed. When you cannot communicate going 8 NM a minute it does not take long for task loading to increase and things to go [to] hell quickly. I personally did not mind the new call sign until flying internationally where it just does NOT work and becomes a real SAFETY ISSUE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.