Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Flight departed enroute to MGGT. The Captain was the pilot flying; and First Officer was the pilot not flying. During the descent for approach; the First Officer monitored the descent utilizing Raw Data as per Company procedures. Both flight crewmembers had monitored the descent/approach phase utilizing Terrain Awareness switch. During the descent/approach phase; ATC assigned a radar vectoring heading of initially 125 degrees; and then a heading of 140 degrees. The crew was assigned to multiple descent altitudes; with a final altitude of 8;000 FT MSL. During the radar vectoring; the crew observed on the Terrain Awareness screen; that higher terrain was approximately 5 NM south of the aircraft (on the right side of aircraft). ATC assigned a radar vectoring heading of 90 degrees for intercept of the Runway 02 localizer. On this heading; the GPWS alerted the crew of terrain. The Captain de-automated the aircraft and completed a CFIT avoidance measure by climbing from the assigned altitude of 8;000 MSL to 9;000 MSL. The crew alerted ATC that we had to climb from the assigned altitude of 8;000 MSL to 9;000 MSL. At approximately 9;000 MSL; VMC conditions prevailed; with the airport visually attained. ATC assigned a heading of approximately 020 degrees; and questioned if the crew had the airport in site. The crew maintained visual identification of the airport; but due to the close proximity and excessive assigned altitude; the crew declined to perform a visual approach that was offered by ATC. The crew requested a full ILS approach from ATC; who then assigned a clearance to go direct to the IAF; and subsequently cleared the crew for the ILS Runway 02 Z approach. The crew performed a successful full approach with no further events.Prior to Top of Descent; the crew should request from ATC to remain on the assigned routing (STAR) in order to remain automated with known LNAV/VNAV points; and to also request full approaches; in order to avoid ATC errors in altitude assignments in mountainous areas. The ATC language limitations that are common in these geographical areas offers a greater opportunity for errors to occur. Maintaining en route assignments of charted courses and altitudes will enhance the safety of flight operations while conducting operations in areas of limited language abilities.
Perhaps choosing to fly the full procedure turn approach and not relying on this Controller's ATC vectors would have been a better solution. Throughout the recovery and subsequent missed approach and second landing; it was obvious that ATC had difficulty at times even understanding why we had to perform a missed approach which made me wonder if he even had altitude readouts on our flight path. His aviation English speaking and understanding was certainly not up to standards after the event as well.
MGGT ATC vectored an aircraft for the ILS Runway 02 Z but when the EGPWS alerted TERRAIN at 8;000 FT within five miles of mountainous terrain; the escape maneuver was accomplished followed by a climb to 9;000 FT and the full approach.