Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CYUL.TRACON, PQ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYUL
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Upon contact with Montreal Arrival; whilst on the HABBS3 Arrival (Jepp 10-2B); we were assigned Runway 24R and read it back. The approach was loaded and briefed. The transition for [Runway] 24R was entered in the FMS. After TIDAS Intersection the FMS made a smart turn toward OMEKI; between TIDAS and LONNA as it was depicted on the FMS. ATC Queried 'ACR X; Turn heading 060; you were supposed to remain on previous heading.' ATC did not assign any heading at all and we were in LNAV. CYUL Jepp 10-2B doesn't display any heading post of TIDAS Intersection. Nothing is mentioned of a heading to continue on. On that very same chart at RUDSU Intersection it shows arrows and a clearly depicted numeric heading value. At TIDAS Intersection; it only shows arrows with no numeric heading depiction. ATC did not assign a heading; only Runway 24R transition. The chart has a discrepancy on it as I have indicated above. ATC communication and complication errors are what in my opinion caused this. To add to the complications; ATC were communicating mostly in French with other aircraft; considering ICAO is headquartered in Montreal and there's an ICAO requirement to have ICAO aviation English proficiency for air carriers; ATC is to blame for the lack of situational awareness it exerts by communicating in anything other than English. We and one other out of dozens; were the only aircraft he was talking English to at that time.Jepp 10-2B needs to be revised with a heading value after TIDAS. Exactly one day after this event; I flew to CYYC. I noticed on Chart 10-2E for CYYC; that in the top right corner of the chart it shows a sort of 'legend' in a box; defining the meaning of the arrows that were present also on chart 10-2B for CYUL. A mere comparison of these two charts at these two airports; clearly in my opinion exerts errors on Jeppesen's behalf; as the chart 10-2B for CYUL needs to have the same definition/instructions for the arrows either as shown in the lower part of CYUL 10-2B or as clearly defined in CYYC 10-2E. CAMI was used in this case; however the instruction was contradicting and with ATC congesting the frequency in French; it was almost impossible to get a word in until he contacted us again. Montreal ATC needs to comply with ICAO English Proficiency requirements. Perhaps in French they gave everyone else the 060 heading; they certainly did not give us any heading instruction in English; the only instruction we received was 'XXXX; Runway 24R Transition.'


Second narrative: I was complacent to the fact CYUL Approach loves to have absolute control in directing aircraft. I assumed that we would be turned or directed to a heading passing the last fix by ATC. We are usually not left to interpret and I should have asked for clarification.


Synopsis: An aircraft on the CYUL HABBS THREE arrival for Runway 24R with LNAV engage; turned toward OMEKI Intersection on the ILS after passing TIDAS but ATC reassigned a 060 heading and advised they should have maintained 060 after TIDAS. The crew contended the chart should have specified the heading.