Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Human Factors
Late descent via LOBA3T. Poor radio reception 2/5 with Barcelona Center; controller was very difficult to understand and frequency was fairly busy. I briefed the STAR and Approach in detail including the 'WARNING: Do not proceed beyond IAF without ATC clearance.' We were stepped down in altitude with numerous clearances. Controller then said 'Aircraft X your time is XA:56'. I questioned the Captain if maybe we were expected to hold at SLL and expect further clearance at XA:56Z? Before we could get clarification; we were handed off to Barcelona Approach (Male Controller). I think were we given lower altitudes and crossed SLL outbound on the 131 radial (as depicted on the ILS Z Rwy 25R approach chart). A few miles beyond SLL the 'male' controller questioned our heading and told us to proceed hard right turn back to SLL and hold as depicted (He gave no expected clearance time). I programed the FMC for the hold; confirmed with the Captain; and the aircraft entered hold as depicted with a tear drop entry. During the entry to the hold the controller again questioned were we were going (told him entering the hold) and instead proceeded to give us vectors to the final approach course; handed us off to tower and landed. IRO (FB) was heads down making logbook write-ups throughout the entire event.The primary cause of confusion with the female controller was lack of standard ICAO communications. A secondary cause was poor radio reception on that frequency (2/5) with Barcelona center. Even the Barcelona Approach controller was nonstandard when he cleared us back to SLL to hold but never gave us an expected clearance time. Another factor was the pilots not getting a clarification of the controller's intentions before leaving the frequency.If standard ICAO communications is 'Aircraft X your time is XA:56'; then that's a pretty poor way to communicate a clearance limit. CONTROLLER NEVER SAID the word 'HOLD' or 'EXPECT FURTHER CLEARANCE' as is standard in the United States. Had controller simply said 'Aircraft X hold at SLL; expect further clearance at XA:56Z' there would have been no misunderstanding. Controllers and pilots alike WORLDWIDE need to not talk so fast and speak more clearly. We probably should not have left her frequency without getting clarification on her intentions for us. The IRO (FB) should have postponed logbook write-ups until at the gate (probably should be 'heads up' backing up the Captain and FO from 18000 until parked at the gate). Finally; there is no reason why every country in the world shouldn't be mandated in using the same communication phraseology (after 104 years of flying).
Air carrier First Officer reported they received several non-standard clearances on arrival into Barcelona (LEBL).