Narrative:

Descend via arrivals are fast becoming the standard; however the charting has not caught up to the new procedures. We have multiple legs and transitions to different runways that have different speed/crossing restrictions all on one graphic page. This is very confusing to say the least.note; please; and example in the SWFFT2 STAR into bna.here we have 2 transitions to different runways that are 1 deg. (Yep; one degree different); with overlapping intersection identification tags. (Nos charts)the intersection onuge id; wedged between breth and corra; can; and ultimately will; cause mass confusion and a pilot violation.I have personally flown more than a few of these into east coast airports and; in watching the GPS navigate; have not looked out the window for over 100 miles. 2 pilot crew; not a big deal. What's a single pilot to do? See and avoid is still viable?there have been times I feel I have to program an arrival from the middle; working towards both ends. Our current navigation radios are not programmed that way and could drop position/altitude calculations if transitions are changed in mid arrival.ATC seems to be content as well to just watch; to the point of a pilot deviation; with no input. Us against them????? Not the industry I want to be a part of!we need to improve charting even to the point of 1 chart for 1 transition. Remove all ambiguity. Briefing strips on the top of the page including entry altitude (as appropriate); minimum altitudes; and no not bury critical information in a pile of notes in small type. Critical information; like the default runway transition; is buried in the notes section on arrivals as the IVANE5 into clt (3 pages long; by the way). One must read the previous 5 notes; then note 6 to find the default runway is 23. Then the note says to 'program the ILS-23;' nowhere noting the 'transition' to runway-23. Splitting hairs; but this is the industry that does that. Bottom line: error prone.this current methodology; I do feel and in my opinion; is going to get someone killed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Citation Excel Captain stated he feels RNAV approach charts should be simplified to reduce errors; citing the BNA SWFFT2 STAR as an example.

Narrative: Descend Via arrivals are fast becoming the standard; however the charting has not caught up to the new procedures. We have multiple legs and transitions to different runways that have different speed/crossing restrictions all on one graphic page. This is very confusing to say the least.Note; please; and example in the SWFFT2 STAR into BNA.Here we have 2 transitions to different runways that are 1 deg. (yep; one degree different); with overlapping intersection identification tags. (NOS charts)The intersection ONUGE id; wedged between BRETH and CORRA; can; and ultimately will; cause mass confusion and a pilot violation.I have personally flown more than a few of these into East Coast airports and; in watching the GPS navigate; have not looked out the window for over 100 miles. 2 pilot crew; not a big deal. What's a single pilot to do? See and avoid is still viable?There have been times I feel I have to program an arrival from the middle; working towards both ends. Our current navigation radios are not programmed that way and could drop position/altitude calculations if transitions are changed in mid arrival.ATC seems to be content as well to just watch; to the point of a pilot deviation; with no input. Us against Them????? Not the industry I want to be a part of!We need to improve charting even to the point of 1 chart for 1 transition. Remove all ambiguity. Briefing strips on the top of the page including entry altitude (as appropriate); minimum altitudes; and no not bury critical information in a pile of notes in small type. Critical information; like the default runway transition; is buried in the notes section on arrivals as the IVANE5 into CLT (3 pages long; by the way). One must read the previous 5 notes; then note 6 to find the default runway is 23. Then the note says to 'program the ILS-23;' nowhere noting the 'Transition' to RWY-23. Splitting hairs; but this is the industry that does that. Bottom line: error prone.This current methodology; I do feel and in my opinion; is going to get someone killed.

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.