Narrative:

Our flight was a part 91 ferry flight to las. We were flying the tyssn 3 arrival into las and were under the control of lax center. We were issued a [clearance to] descend via the tyssn 3 into las. While descending toward kaddy; we were instructed to descend to 14;000 ft instead of the published 250/12;000 ft as published. Prior to kaddy; lax center instructed up to fly direct to las and descend to 10;000 ft; speed at our discretion and contact las approach. After checking in with las approach; we were given a 060 heading to fly and asked if we had the airport in sight. We confirmed we had the field in sight. The RNAV (GPS) runway approached 19R was loaded into the FMS. After being cleared for the visual approach 19R; I brought up the center line for visual guidance. We were approximately 25 NM when issued the visual approach to 19R. At approximately 15 NM; las approach cleared us direct to trrop and we were cleared for the RNAV visual runway 19R. Since we were expecting a visual approach to 19R and I had loaded the RNAV (GPS) 19R approach into the FMS; I was expecting to be cleared to the sphere for the left base into 19R as I have been many times before. When I didn't see trrop on the RNAV (GPS) runway 19R on the approach chart; I queried approach control for the spelling of trrop. After receiving the spelling; I put that into the FMS and we started to fly direct to trrop fix. After crossing trrop; we made a turn west toward the sphere. At this point in time; las approach knew we were not on the RNAV visual runway 19R approach as instructed and asked if we had the sphere in sight. I confirmed that was did and we were cleared direct to the sphere and instructed to turn base abeam the sphere to land runway 19R and switch to tower frequency. Prior to leaving the approach control frequency; I requested a phone number so I could contact them to discuss this situation. After our arrival; I contacted las tower and spoke with the tower manager. He explained that this procedure was developed by our company and numerous airlines are now using this procedure and the list of companies using this approach is still growing. There still seems to be a lot of confusion about this visual approach on our company's side as well as the other airlines using this approach. I didn't realize that this approach is used all of the time now. There was no aircraft deviation or disruption of traffic because of our misunderstanding of the approach and as far as the tower chief was concerned; this matter was closed.after talking with the las tower manager; I contacted our fleet assistant chief pilot and we discussed this at length to clear the matter and confusion up. One thing that might have helped eliminate the confusion would have been the controller asking if we were familiar with the runway RNAV visual 19L/right approach. This might have jogged our memory about this approach. There was something about the wording that we both found confusing. This is in no way to place the blame on the approach controller. I am just as guilty for not knowing that this approach is a full-time active approach. I'm merely pointing out that according to the tower manager; this happens a lot by all companies that are approved to use this procedure. It's a very basic approach that appears to work well for controllers and pilots alike. There just seems to be something missing to make this approach more understandable. Clearer communication from ATC as well as pilots on what is being requested or asked of. This is also an important topic that should be addressed at company recurrent.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An aircraft was cleared for the LAS RNAV VISUAL 19R; but after accepting the clearance both ATC and the crew realized they could not identify the waypoint TRROP using the RNAV ILS 19R chart and were cleared for the visual.

Narrative: Our flight was a Part 91 ferry flight to LAS. We were flying the TYSSN 3 arrival into LAS and were under the control of LAX Center. We were issued a [clearance to] descend via the TYSSN 3 into LAS. While descending toward KADDY; we were instructed to descend to 14;000 FT instead of the published 250/12;000 FT as published. Prior to KADDY; LAX Center instructed up to fly direct to LAS and descend to 10;000 FT; speed at our discretion and contact LAS Approach. After checking in with LAS Approach; we were given a 060 heading to fly and asked if we had the airport in sight. We confirmed we had the field in sight. The RNAV (GPS) Runway approached 19R was loaded into the FMS. After being cleared for the visual approach 19R; I brought up the center line for visual guidance. We were approximately 25 NM when issued the visual approach to 19R. At approximately 15 NM; LAS Approach cleared us direct to TRROP and we were cleared for the RNAV VISUAL Runway 19R. Since we were expecting a visual approach to 19R and I had loaded the RNAV (GPS) 19R Approach into the FMS; I was expecting to be cleared to the Sphere for the left base into 19R as I have been many times before. When I didn't see TRROP on the RNAV (GPS) Runway 19R on the approach chart; I queried Approach Control for the spelling of TRROP. After receiving the spelling; I put that into the FMS and we started to fly direct to TRROP fix. After crossing TRROP; we made a turn west toward the Sphere. At this point in time; LAS Approach knew we were not on the RNAV Visual Runway 19R approach as instructed and asked if we had the Sphere in sight. I confirmed that was did and we were cleared direct to the Sphere and instructed to turn base abeam the Sphere to land Runway 19R and switch to Tower frequency. Prior to leaving the Approach Control frequency; I requested a phone number so I could contact them to discuss this situation. After our arrival; I contacted LAS Tower and spoke with the Tower Manager. He explained that this procedure was developed by our Company and numerous airlines are now using this procedure and the list of companies using this approach is still growing. There still seems to be a lot of confusion about this visual approach on our Company's side as well as the other airlines using this approach. I didn't realize that this approach is used all of the time now. There was no aircraft deviation or disruption of traffic because of our misunderstanding of the approach and as far as the Tower Chief was concerned; this matter was closed.After talking with the LAS Tower Manager; I contacted our Fleet Assistant Chief Pilot and we discussed this at length to clear the matter and confusion up. One thing that might have helped eliminate the confusion would have been the Controller asking if we were familiar with the Runway RNAV VISUAL 19L/R approach. This might have jogged our memory about this approach. There was something about the wording that we both found confusing. This is in no way to place the blame on the Approach Controller. I am just as guilty for not knowing that this approach is a full-time active approach. I'm merely pointing out that according to the Tower Manager; this happens a lot by all companies that are approved to use this procedure. It's a very basic approach that appears to work well for controllers and pilots alike. There just seems to be something missing to make this approach more understandable. Clearer communication from ATC as well as pilots on what is being requested or asked of. This is also an important topic that should be addressed at company recurrent.

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.