Narrative:

This is not a specific pilot or controller error but will occur more often with many of the poorly designed arrivals and departures. While descending on the kiddz 1 nneal transition; houston center turned us off the arrival to the west for spacing and when reclearing us to join the arrival wanted us to proceed to the jaaes intersection. What happened here is we anticipated returning to the original transition which has a waypoint named caase and that was the only fix on the FMC legs page that sounded like what he wanted. The radio quality was very poor and the controller's voice hard to understand. When these procedures are designed (in a nice quiet office) I'm not sure if the following factors are considered or not. 1) many waypoints have very similar sounding pronunciation.2) radios have various degrees of performance both in the plane and with ATC.3) in a noisy -300 with one ear uncovered so we can communicate with the other crew member (very bad choice in my opinion to not equip them with the hot mic intercom system).4) aging pilots with reduced hearing ability.5) some ATC controllers have a dialect that is difficult to understand. In our case we read back caase as that would be the next logical waypoint on our transition and the controller said jaaes and spelled it but I responded that we didn't see the fix and he respelled it a second time. That is when I noticed the jaaes fix on a different transition but by then the controller had cleared us to kiddz; so it was a moot point. Had the controller given the clearance as the jaaes fix off of the llo transition we would have found it much more quickly. Next area of difficulty on this arrival was after checking in with approach we were cleared to descend via the kidds 1 and expect 12R. The first officer and I discussed whether he wanted us to fly the 12 transition or not; as that was what was implied in the controller's voice. I had to ask what his intention was and he responded we were to fly the 12 transition. In a moment of quiet radio transmission I mentioned to the controller that most other airports give us a clearance to fly the 'xx' runway transition upon check in and an expect clearance was just that; an expectation. He was very nice and said that was just his way of saying it as these arrivals are new to him as well. I believe he understood how this was not what the pilots needed to hear or proper new phraseology. As mentioned in the narrative I feel that the new charted procedure needs to be tested in the worst of circumstances; bad radios; old pilots; noisy cockpit; and controller dialect. There should never be similar sounding fixes anywhere near each other...ever. If the company is serious about keeping us out of the yellow and red then we need to spend more time flying the plane and less time heads down typing/briefing. When flying these RNAV arrivals to specific runway transitions they should be programmed in at cruise and not have to be entered at lower altitudes while on the arrival where we must do a lot of typing and rebriefing; meanwhile no one is looking out the window for traffic. We must partner with ATC to have the center issue a clearance for the specific arrival; transition and runway assignment as far out as possible. I realize that changes can and must happen as we get closer in but for example airports like hou or lax are often on the same flow for much of the day and if approach can pass on to center which runway transition they would like us to fly we can program fully without just an expectation. There are just too many fixes to recheck and rebrief when we have to wait until closer in for a clearance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reports confusion during vectors off the KIDDZ 1 arrival due to similar sounding fix names and expectation bias. The Captain suggests that in order for these complex RNAV arrivals to be flown successfully they need to be entered into the FMC at altitude and not altered by ATC during descent.

Narrative: This is not a specific pilot or controller error but will occur more often with many of the poorly designed arrivals and departures. While descending on the KIDDZ 1 NNEAL transition; Houston Center turned us off the arrival to the west for spacing and when reclearing us to join the arrival wanted us to proceed to the JAAES intersection. What happened here is we anticipated returning to the original transition which has a waypoint named CAASE and that was the only fix on the FMC legs page that sounded like what he wanted. The radio quality was very poor and the controller's voice hard to understand. When these procedures are designed (in a nice quiet office) I'm not sure if the following factors are considered or not. 1) Many waypoints have very similar sounding pronunciation.2) Radios have various degrees of performance both in the plane and with ATC.3) In a noisy -300 with one ear uncovered so we can communicate with the other Crew Member (very bad choice in my opinion to not equip them with the hot mic intercom system).4) Aging pilots with reduced hearing ability.5) Some ATC Controllers have a dialect that is difficult to understand. In our case we read back CAASE as that would be the next logical waypoint on our transition and the Controller said JAAES and spelled it but I responded that we didn't see the fix and he respelled it a second time. That is when I noticed the JAAES fix on a different transition but by then the Controller had cleared us to KIDDZ; so it was a moot point. Had the Controller given the clearance as the JAAES fix off of the LLO transition we would have found it much more quickly. Next area of difficulty on this arrival was after checking in with Approach we were cleared to descend via the KIDDS 1 and expect 12R. The First Officer and I discussed whether he wanted us to fly the 12 transition or not; as that was what was implied in the Controller's voice. I had to ask what his intention was and he responded we were to fly the 12 transition. In a moment of quiet radio transmission I mentioned to the Controller that most other airports give us a clearance to fly the 'XX' runway transition upon check in and an expect clearance was just that; an expectation. He was very nice and said that was just his way of saying it as these arrivals are new to him as well. I believe he understood how this was not what the pilots needed to hear or proper new phraseology. As mentioned in the narrative I feel that the new charted procedure needs to be tested in the worst of circumstances; bad radios; old pilots; noisy cockpit; and controller dialect. There should never be similar sounding fixes anywhere near each other...EVER. If the Company is serious about keeping us out of the yellow and red then we need to spend more time flying the plane and less time heads down typing/briefing. When flying these RNAV arrivals to specific runway transitions they should be programmed in at cruise and not have to be entered at lower altitudes while on the arrival where we must do a lot of typing and rebriefing; meanwhile no one is looking out the window for traffic. We must partner with ATC to have the Center issue a clearance for the specific arrival; transition and runway assignment as far out as possible. I realize that changes can and must happen as we get closer in but for example airports like HOU or LAX are often on the same flow for much of the day and if Approach can pass on to Center which runway transition they would like us to fly we can program fully without just an expectation. There are just too many fixes to recheck and rebrief when we have to wait until closer in for a clearance.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.