Narrative:

During descent on the JAGGR1 RNAV arrival we hit the hashe intersection 400 ft above the maximum altitude for this fix. This was the first time either myself or the first officer had flown an RNAV arrival into denver. Just prior to this excursion ATC had issued us a speed reduction. We had been flying the arrival in a fully managed mode.due to the proximity to the fix upon receiving the speed reduction the first officer (who was the flying pilot) decided to select the new speed. This was a high workload phase of flight...we had just transitioned from the flight levels and were entering the altimeter setting at this time. In addition we were running the approach checklist and signaling sterile cockpit to the flight attendants.with everything going on I didn't see that the airplane was struggling to simultaneously go down and slow down at the same time until we were 0.7 NM from the fix. I saw that we were not going to make the restriction at hashe and called that out to the first officer. He immediately disconnected the autopilot in order to quickly increase our rate-of-descent; but we still arrived there 420 ft too high. ATC did not say anything and we continued to landing without incident.I feel that denver approach contributed to our problems here. Throughout the RNAV arrival we received three air speed assignments other than those published; two altitudes other than those published; and two different lateral clearances that differed from those published. Not only did we start getting confused about what exactly ATC was expecting from us due to the large number of deviations from what we had been 'cleared' to fly; but all of this data input into the FMGC does not make the airbus respond well. It is slow to figure out the new vertical paths and when you combine this with unpublished speeds; it really freaks out the box. I simply don't understand the value of an RNAV arrival combined with a 'cleared to descend via' clearance...and then receiving seven variation clearances to what's published. I can tell you that on this; my first den RNAV arrival; I strongly feel that we were led down a path by ATC that did not engender the level of safety that we normally have on arrival into denver. I also don't think that the controllers that we dealt with today have any concept of how this many deviations from the 'cleared to descend via' clearance we received affects our ability to safely fly such a procedure.at the gate; we discussed what happened and how we managed to get ourselves high over this fix. I think I was trying to do too much at once (approach check; altimeter setting; sterile signal) during a period of time when my attention should have been 100 percent on the automation. I feel that in the future when I get changes to the RNAV arrival it will cue me in to being hyper-aware [to ensure] that the automation is responding [appropriately] to the revised constraints. I also think that we placed too much faith in the automation to quickly come up with the new path at the slower speed. I will definitely be more on guard on these den RNAV arrivals in the future...especially when ATC begins throwing out changes to the 'cleared to descend via' clearances.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: When ATC issued modifications to their 'descend via the JAGGR RNAV STAR to DEN' clearance; the flight crew of an A319 was unable to comply with the altitude restriction at HASHE.

Narrative: During descent on the JAGGR1 RNAV arrival we hit the HASHE intersection 400 FT above the maximum altitude for this fix. This was the first time either myself or the First Officer had flown an RNAV arrival into Denver. Just prior to this excursion ATC had issued us a speed reduction. We had been flying the arrival in a fully managed mode.Due to the proximity to the fix upon receiving the speed reduction the First Officer (who was the flying pilot) decided to select the new speed. This was a high workload phase of flight...we had just transitioned from the flight levels and were entering the altimeter setting at this time. In addition we were running the approach checklist and signaling sterile cockpit to the flight attendants.With everything going on I didn't see that the airplane was struggling to simultaneously go down and slow down at the same time until we were 0.7 NM from the fix. I saw that we were not going to make the restriction at HASHE and called that out to the First Officer. He immediately disconnected the autopilot in order to quickly increase our rate-of-descent; but we still arrived there 420 FT too high. ATC did not say anything and we continued to landing without incident.I feel that Denver Approach contributed to our problems here. Throughout the RNAV arrival we received three air speed assignments other than those published; two altitudes other than those published; and two different lateral clearances that differed from those published. Not only did we start getting confused about what exactly ATC was expecting from us due to the large number of deviations from what we had been 'cleared' to fly; but all of this data input into the FMGC does not make the Airbus respond well. It is slow to figure out the new vertical paths and when you combine this with unpublished speeds; it really freaks out the box. I simply don't understand the value of an RNAV arrival combined with a 'cleared to descend via' clearance...and then receiving SEVEN variation clearances to what's published. I can tell you that on this; my first DEN RNAV arrival; I strongly feel that we were led down a path by ATC that did not engender the level of safety that we normally have on arrival into Denver. I also don't think that the controllers that we dealt with today have any concept of how this many deviations from the 'cleared to descend via' clearance we received affects our ability to safely fly such a procedure.At the gate; we discussed what happened and how we managed to get ourselves high over this fix. I think I was trying to do too much at once (approach check; altimeter setting; sterile signal) during a period of time when my attention should have been 100 percent on the automation. I feel that in the future when I get changes to the RNAV arrival it will cue me in to being hyper-aware [to ensure] that the automation is responding [appropriately] to the revised constraints. I also think that we placed too much faith in the automation to quickly come up with the new path at the slower speed. I will definitely be more on guard on these DEN RNAV arrivals in the future...ESPECIALLY when ATC begins throwing out changes to the 'cleared to descend via' clearances.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.