Narrative:

I was the pilot not flying and the captain was the pilot flying. We are both familiar with pacific rim procedures. The main gist of this report is about communication difficulties compounded by converting metric altitudes to feet. During descent the chinese controller was very difficult to understand. To make matters worse; she was stepping us down slowly; which meant multiple periods in which we had to try to understand what she said and then consult the charts to convert meters to feet. We continuously had to ask her to please repeat herself so we could understand. The exact altitude assignments are unclear to me now due to the numerous clearances we received. I can remember being level at the transition level of 3;600 meters (11;800 ft). We then received numerous step downs each requiring the conversion charts and interpretation of the broken chinese/english; eventually getting down to 1;800 meters (5;900 ft) while on vectors. The controller then said; 'turn left to 270 heading and check altimeters.' we turned left and noticed that in the process of interpreting the language and converting numerous meter/ft assignments we had not yet reset our altimeters and were off by about 200 to 250 ft. The controller said; 'climb to 2;100 meters.' we did so and made the conversion. This was followed by more climbs/conversions/interpretations of language. She then descended us back down and we were back on track. At this point; I think she was trying to explain what had happened; but in her explanation she said '1;800 meters' and also '3;300 meters.' I said; 'verify that you want us to climb to 1;800 meters'. She said no; but mentioned '1;800 meters and 3;300 meters' again. Like I said; after the fact I think she was trying to explain something about why she turned us to the 270 heading; but it was unintelligible. We thought she wanted us to climb again to 1;800 meters or 3;300 meters; the captain initiated a climb to get away from potential objects; then she said negative descend to the lower altitude again. We then flew the approach without further issues. Once on the ground; we had a company representative act as an interpreter to call the tower to seek clarification. We all agreed that there was a language barrier that complicated what would normally be already complicated chinese altimeter procedures made more complicated with multiple step downs/conversions. This was further complicated by operating a high workload environment (trying to select the arrival and approach in FMC late in the flight common in china; where you don't know what you'll get until the last minute). Fatigue also played a part due to a schedule built with 24 hour layovers. To prevent this from happening again in the future; here are a few observations: 1) they could avoid leveling us off right at the transition level. Leveling us off here means when she gives us a difficult to understand clearance (due to language); we have to repeat back what she says; do the metric feet conversion for the pilot not flying then the pilot flying (consulting charts); then remember to set qnh. This is not being done at 18;000 ft as we are used to. 2) assign the arrival early; so we can review it when not in a critical phase of flight. The arrival you are assigned is often a surprise in the pac rim. 3) have us fly the published approach rather than vectors. This keeps us away from terrain and prevents miscommunication. This is especially important in places like ZZZZ where the dialect seems to be very strong as opposed to hong kong; shenzhen; narita; etc... 4) as an airline; to operate safely we need to avoid 24 hour layovers and 'flip flopping' of our body clocks. With a 24 hour layover; you get 8 hours of sleep; and then you are awake 16 hours when you start your duty day. 15 hours works; 36 hours works; 24 hours if very tough. 5) if the world would use a common transition level (preferably at a high altitude like FL180) and also use feet vs. Meters; many of these occurrences would be avoided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 flight crew experiences communication difficulties with Chinese Controller whose English is very difficult to understand. The problems are compounded by many step down altitudes and the necessity to convert meters to feet.

Narrative: I was the pilot not flying and the Captain was the pilot flying. We are both familiar with Pacific Rim procedures. The main gist of this report is about communication difficulties compounded by converting metric altitudes to feet. During descent the Chinese Controller was very difficult to understand. To make matters worse; she was stepping us down slowly; which meant multiple periods in which we had to try to understand what she said and then consult the charts to convert meters to feet. We continuously had to ask her to please repeat herself so we could understand. The exact altitude assignments are unclear to me now due to the numerous clearances we received. I can remember being level at the Transition Level of 3;600 meters (11;800 FT). We then received numerous step downs each requiring the conversion charts and interpretation of the broken Chinese/English; eventually getting down to 1;800 meters (5;900 FT) while on vectors. The Controller then said; 'Turn left to 270 heading and check altimeters.' We turned left and noticed that in the process of interpreting the language and converting numerous meter/FT assignments we had not yet reset our altimeters and were off by about 200 to 250 FT. The Controller said; 'Climb to 2;100 meters.' We did so and made the conversion. This was followed by more climbs/conversions/interpretations of language. She then descended us back down and we were back on track. At this point; I think she was trying to explain what had happened; but in her explanation she said '1;800 meters' and also '3;300 meters.' I said; 'verify that you want us to climb to 1;800 meters'. She said no; but mentioned '1;800 meters and 3;300 meters' again. Like I said; after the fact I think she was trying to explain something about why she turned us to the 270 heading; but it was unintelligible. We thought she wanted us to climb again to 1;800 meters or 3;300 meters; the Captain initiated a climb to get away from potential objects; then she said negative descend to the lower altitude again. We then flew the approach without further issues. Once on the ground; we had a company representative act as an interpreter to call the Tower to seek clarification. We all agreed that there was a language barrier that complicated what would normally be already complicated Chinese altimeter procedures made more complicated with multiple step downs/conversions. This was further complicated by operating a high workload environment (trying to select the arrival and approach in FMC late in the flight common in China; where you don't know what you'll get until the last minute). Fatigue also played a part due to a schedule built with 24 hour layovers. To prevent this from happening again in the future; here are a few observations: 1) They could avoid leveling us off right at the Transition Level. Leveling us off here means when she gives us a difficult to understand clearance (due to language); we have to repeat back what she says; do the metric feet conversion for the pilot not flying then the pilot flying (consulting charts); then remember to set QNH. This is not being done at 18;000 FT as we are used to. 2) Assign the arrival early; so we can review it when not in a critical phase of flight. The arrival you are assigned is often a surprise in the Pac Rim. 3) Have us fly the published approach rather than vectors. This keeps us away from terrain and prevents miscommunication. This is especially important in places like ZZZZ where the dialect seems to be very strong as opposed to Hong Kong; Shenzhen; Narita; etc... 4) As an airline; to operate safely we need to avoid 24 hour layovers and 'flip flopping' of our body clocks. With a 24 hour layover; you get 8 hours of sleep; and then you are awake 16 hours when you start your duty day. 15 hours works; 36 hours works; 24 hours if very tough. 5) If the world would use a common transition level (preferably at a high altitude like FL180) and also use feet vs. meters; many of these occurrences would be avoided.

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.