Narrative:

I understand that your jurisdiction more than likely does not include nicaragua, however, I believe this was a classic situation of a foreign ATC language barrier. The WX around managua was approximately 1500 ft overcast and 10 mi, thunderstorms surrounding the field and at the field itself. The ride on the descent was nothing more than light turbulence with very occasional moderate chop and moderate rain. I had programmed the FMC to plan on a descent to arrive 35 NM from managua at 10000 ft MSL and 250 KTS. We were on flight plan airway A502 to managua. As the first officer and myself looked at the approach plate we noticed that there were 1 of 2 ways to execute the VOR runway 9 approach. He had mentioned to me that he had always used the procedure of intercepting the published 10 DME arc and utilizing that method to runway 9. As I had never been to managua before and noting the presence of airway A502 depicted on the chart as the start point of the 10 DME arc I agreed that this was probably what we would get. Let me note that managua is a non radar approach control environment. The controller proceeded to step us down from 11000 ft MSL to 5000 ft MSL. Prior to the turn off of the airway to initiate the 10 DME arc she said 'report 5 DME runway 9.' there was no statement from the controller to 'expect approach clearance at the VOR,' 'cross the VOR at 5000 ft, report 5 DME,' 'cross the VOR at 5000 ft, cleared for the approach.' only 'report 5 DME runway 9.' we both assumed wrongly that she had meant report 5 DME out on final on the approach to runway 9. So we commenced flying the arc, transitioning from the airway and complying with the charted stepdown fixes associated with the VOR 9 approach. As we were turning final at approximately 9 DME from the runway the controller asked our position and altitude. We responded with, 'on final, 9 DME at 2700 ft as published.' she then said that we were to have called 5 DME from the VOR and crossed the VOR at 5000 ft. There was no other traffic in the area. We landed without any incident and the controller never questioned further. We were handed off to tower and ground control and nothing more was mentioned at all. In further conversation between the first officer and myself we both came to the same conclusion that all that would have had to have been said was 'cross the VOR at 5000 ft, report 5 DME and cleared for the approach,' or 'cleared direct to the managua VOR, maintain 5000 ft, and report 5 DME.' we are not placing blame on anyone in particular as I believe all of us were to fault to a point. Just simple miscom.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV. MISCOM WITH FOREIGN CTLR RELATED TO APCH CLRNC. FLC CHOSE AN APCH AND FLEW IT, BUT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE FOREIGN CTLR WAS EXPECTING.

Narrative: I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR JURISDICTION MORE THAN LIKELY DOES NOT INCLUDE NICARAGUA, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THIS WAS A CLASSIC SIT OF A FOREIGN ATC LANGUAGE BARRIER. THE WX AROUND MANAGUA WAS APPROX 1500 FT OVCST AND 10 MI, TSTMS SURROUNDING THE FIELD AND AT THE FIELD ITSELF. THE RIDE ON THE DSCNT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN LIGHT TURB WITH VERY OCCASIONAL MODERATE CHOP AND MODERATE RAIN. I HAD PROGRAMMED THE FMC TO PLAN ON A DSCNT TO ARRIVE 35 NM FROM MANAGUA AT 10000 FT MSL AND 250 KTS. WE WERE ON FLT PLAN AIRWAY A502 TO MANAGUA. AS THE FO AND MYSELF LOOKED AT THE APCH PLATE WE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE 1 OF 2 WAYS TO EXECUTE THE VOR RWY 9 APCH. HE HAD MENTIONED TO ME THAT HE HAD ALWAYS USED THE PROC OF INTERCEPTING THE PUBLISHED 10 DME ARC AND UTILIZING THAT METHOD TO RWY 9. AS I HAD NEVER BEEN TO MANAGUA BEFORE AND NOTING THE PRESENCE OF AIRWAY A502 DEPICTED ON THE CHART AS THE START POINT OF THE 10 DME ARC I AGREED THAT THIS WAS PROBABLY WHAT WE WOULD GET. LET ME NOTE THAT MANAGUA IS A NON RADAR APCH CTL ENVIRONMENT. THE CTLR PROCEEDED TO STEP US DOWN FROM 11000 FT MSL TO 5000 FT MSL. PRIOR TO THE TURN OFF OF THE AIRWAY TO INITIATE THE 10 DME ARC SHE SAID 'RPT 5 DME RWY 9.' THERE WAS NO STATEMENT FROM THE CTLR TO 'EXPECT APCH CLRNC AT THE VOR,' 'CROSS THE VOR AT 5000 FT, RPT 5 DME,' 'CROSS THE VOR AT 5000 FT, CLRED FOR THE APCH.' ONLY 'RPT 5 DME RWY 9.' WE BOTH ASSUMED WRONGLY THAT SHE HAD MEANT RPT 5 DME OUT ON FINAL ON THE APCH TO RWY 9. SO WE COMMENCED FLYING THE ARC, TRANSITIONING FROM THE AIRWAY AND COMPLYING WITH THE CHARTED STEPDOWN FIXES ASSOCIATED WITH THE VOR 9 APCH. AS WE WERE TURNING FINAL AT APPROX 9 DME FROM THE RWY THE CTLR ASKED OUR POS AND ALT. WE RESPONDED WITH, 'ON FINAL, 9 DME AT 2700 FT AS PUBLISHED.' SHE THEN SAID THAT WE WERE TO HAVE CALLED 5 DME FROM THE VOR AND CROSSED THE VOR AT 5000 FT. THERE WAS NO OTHER TFC IN THE AREA. WE LANDED WITHOUT ANY INCIDENT AND THE CTLR NEVER QUESTIONED FURTHER. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO TWR AND GND CTL AND NOTHING MORE WAS MENTIONED AT ALL. IN FURTHER CONVERSATION BTWN THE FO AND MYSELF WE BOTH CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT ALL THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SAID WAS 'CROSS THE VOR AT 5000 FT, RPT 5 DME AND CLRED FOR THE APCH,' OR 'CLRED DIRECT TO THE MANAGUA VOR, MAINTAIN 5000 FT, AND RPT 5 DME.' WE ARE NOT PLACING BLAME ON ANYONE IN PARTICULAR AS I BELIEVE ALL OF US WERE TO FAULT TO A POINT. JUST SIMPLE MISCOM.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.