Confusion about the correct altimeter setting; QFE altimetry; fatigue and an incomplete approach bri...

Attributes
ACN	824257
Time
Date	200902
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	UAAA.Airport
State Reference	FO
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Flight Engineer / Second Officer Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 191 Flight Crew Total 8000 Flight Crew Type 1821
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 150 Flight Crew Total 13000 Flight Crew Type 500
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Altitude Overshoot Deviation - Procedural Clearance Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

Narrative:

On approach to uaaa (almaty kazakhstan); the following event happened. Kazakhstan uses QFE altimetry procedures. On descent we believe the wrong altimeter setting was applied; causing our flight to descend below the appropriate altitudes for the ILS approach to runway 5L. We could see the ground; but forward visibility was limited. Upon seeing the ground and noticing our radar altimeter; at the same time the approach controller queried our altitude; so we told approach our altitude and that we were executing an immediate missed approach. Missed approach and second approach was uneventful. A few things led to this event. Number one was the confusing approach procedures in kazakhstan. The former soviet states still use QFE procedures. If kazakhstan would use ICAO standard procedures; there would be less confusion. (China changed from QFE to qnh procedures at their major airports.) second was the lack of a thorough briefing by the captain. Fatigue was also a factor as this was a long flight with multiple time zone swaps on an 'around the world' trip. Third was the language barrier. It was difficult to understand the female ATC controller. She had a thick russian accent.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Confusion about the correct altimeter setting; QFE altimetry; fatigue and an incomplete approach briefing resulted in a CFTT incident at UAAA for a widebody flight crew.

Narrative: On approach to UAAA (Almaty Kazakhstan); the following event happened. Kazakhstan uses QFE altimetry procedures. On descent we believe the wrong altimeter setting was applied; causing our flight to descend below the appropriate altitudes for the ILS approach to Runway 5L. We could see the ground; but forward visibility was limited. Upon seeing the ground and noticing our radar altimeter; at the same time the Approach Controller queried our altitude; so we told Approach our altitude and that we were executing an immediate missed approach. Missed approach and second approach was uneventful. A few things led to this event. Number one was the confusing approach procedures in Kazakhstan. The former Soviet States still use QFE procedures. If Kazakhstan would use ICAO standard procedures; there would be less confusion. (China changed from QFE to QNH procedures at their major airports.) Second was the lack of a thorough briefing by the Captain. Fatigue was also a factor as this was a long flight with multiple time zone swaps on an 'around the world' trip. Third was the language barrier. It was difficult to understand the female ATC Controller. She had a thick Russian accent.

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.

Confusion about the correct altimeter setting; QFE altimetry; fatigue and an incomplete approach briefing resulted in a cftt incident at uaaa for a widebody flight crew.