Flight crew issued profile descent with no routing instructions. No way to transition to profile.

Attributes
ACN	121666
Time
Date	198908
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : lax
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 24000 msl bound upper : 24000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	arrival : profile descent enroute airway : j64
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	121666
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Operational Deviation

Narrative:

Scheduled flight from las to lax. Filed route is hec J64 lax. Approximately 20 mi after passing hec, lax center controller stated 'cleared for the civet profile descent', with no other routing instructions. Since the feeder routes to civet intersection were deleted, there is no way to transition to the profile. Civet intersection lies along our filed route, J64, however, the profile descent procedure lists a maximum altitude at civet of FL180. The lowest altitude for the jet airway structure was FL190 due to the altimeter setting (29.84). Without a feeder route depicted, a pilot has no way to easily determine if adequate terrain separation is provided. Eventually, the controller amended the clearance to read 'maintain present heading, intercept the runway 25L localizer, descend to 14,000, cleared for the profile descent'. This clarified the situation, since the controller had now cleared us to a specific routing and altitude to transition to the profile descent. While this may seem trivial and legalistic, I feel that it is an indicator that pilots are expected to blindly accept a controller's descent clearance in the belief that it must be safe, even though it is sufficiently unusual to make a doubt in the pilot's mind. I can't help but think of the crash which led to the establishment of the ASRS system. Solution: advise controllers to provide a specific routing and descent clearance to transition to the profile descent. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states the plate for profile descent was changed about a year ago and the transitions were deleted to 'give the controllers more flexibility'. Feels this leaves the pilot in a gray area with no adequate routing to descend to profile descent altitudes. Minimum on jet airway is 19,000' at civet so cannot comply with the 'at or below 18,000'' required on profile. Feels a clarification on charts is needed.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW ISSUED PROFILE DESCENT WITH NO ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS. NO WAY TO TRANSITION TO PROFILE.

Narrative: SCHEDULED FLT FROM LAS TO LAX. FILED ROUTE IS HEC J64 LAX. APPROX 20 MI AFTER PASSING HEC, LAX CENTER CTLR STATED 'CLRED FOR THE CIVET PROFILE DSCNT', WITH NO OTHER ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS. SINCE THE FEEDER ROUTES TO CIVET INTXN WERE DELETED, THERE IS NO WAY TO TRANSITION TO THE PROFILE. CIVET INTXN LIES ALONG OUR FILED ROUTE, J64, HOWEVER, THE PROFILE DSCNT PROC LISTS A MAX ALT AT CIVET OF FL180. THE LOWEST ALT FOR THE JET AIRWAY STRUCTURE WAS FL190 DUE TO THE ALTIMETER SETTING (29.84). WITHOUT A FEEDER ROUTE DEPICTED, A PLT HAS NO WAY TO EASILY DETERMINE IF ADEQUATE TERRAIN SEPARATION IS PROVIDED. EVENTUALLY, THE CTLR AMENDED THE CLRNC TO READ 'MAINTAIN PRESENT HDG, INTERCEPT THE RWY 25L LOC, DSND TO 14,000, CLRED FOR THE PROFILE DSCNT'. THIS CLARIFIED THE SITUATION, SINCE THE CTLR HAD NOW CLRED US TO A SPECIFIC ROUTING AND ALT TO TRANSITION TO THE PROFILE DSCNT. WHILE THIS MAY SEEM TRIVIAL AND LEGALISTIC, I FEEL THAT IT IS AN INDICATOR THAT PLTS ARE EXPECTED TO BLINDLY ACCEPT A CTLR'S DSCNT CLRNC IN THE BELIEF THAT IT MUST BE SAFE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS SUFFICIENTLY UNUSUAL TO MAKE A DOUBT IN THE PLT'S MIND. I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK OF THE CRASH WHICH LED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASRS SYSTEM. SOLUTION: ADVISE CTLRS TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC ROUTING AND DSCNT CLRNC TO TRANSITION TO THE PROFILE DSCNT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATES THE PLATE FOR PROFILE DSCNT WAS CHANGED ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND THE TRANSITIONS WERE DELETED TO 'GIVE THE CTLRS MORE FLEXIBILITY'. FEELS THIS LEAVES THE PLT IN A GRAY AREA WITH NO ADEQUATE ROUTING TO DSND TO PROFILE DSCNT ALTS. MINIMUM ON JET AIRWAY IS 19,000' AT CIVET SO CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE 'AT OR BELOW 18,000'' REQUIRED ON PROFILE. FEELS A CLARIFICATION ON CHARTS IS NEEDED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.