Narrative:

We were cleared to 14000' MSL by ont approach, then cleared the seter 1 arrival for the ILS 26L approach. As we approached seter intx, approach control asked if we were flying the published arrival. We replied in the affirmative, and continued with the arrival at 14000'. Before we could request a lower altitude, approach control called as we passed seter, cancelled our clearance and gave us descent vector instructions. There was then a discussion with approach control with reference to altitudes depicted on the approach chart. We were descended and cleared for the ILS 26L approach. We landed west/O further incident and contacted approach control by phone. Apparently approach control had issued a clearance for the ILS 26L approach at the same time as they had issued a clearance to fly the seter 1 arrival. They expected us to initiate our own dscnts to the MEA's depicted on the STAR and transition to the ILS 26L approach. The approach control supervisor agreed that the clearance was confusing and probably should not have been given in that format. In 25 yrs of flying, I have never been issued a similar clearance, nor had the first officer in his flying career. I recommend that clrncs for stars and approachs be given separately. Also, in a radar environment, I feel the controller should give descent clrncs until on vectors for the final approach course. If similar clrncs will be issued in the future, the approach plates should show a more detailed depiction and narrative similar to a profile descent.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG ON APCH TO ONT DOES NOT DESCEND WHEN CLEARED THE SETER 1 STAR FOR RWY 26L. CTLR MEANT THAT THE MLG WAS CLEARED FOR THE APCH, BUT DID NOT STATE THIS PROPERLY.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED TO 14000' MSL BY ONT APCH, THEN CLRED THE SETER 1 ARR FOR THE ILS 26L APCH. AS WE APCHED SETER INTX, APCH CTL ASKED IF WE WERE FLYING THE PUBLISHED ARR. WE REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND CONTINUED WITH THE ARR AT 14000'. BEFORE WE COULD REQUEST A LOWER ALT, APCH CTL CALLED AS WE PASSED SETER, CANCELLED OUR CLRNC AND GAVE US DSCNT VECTOR INSTRUCTIONS. THERE WAS THEN A DISCUSSION WITH APCH CTL WITH REF TO ALTS DEPICTED ON THE APCH CHART. WE WERE DSNDED AND CLRED FOR THE ILS 26L APCH. WE LANDED W/O FURTHER INCIDENT AND CONTACTED APCH CTL BY PHONE. APPARENTLY APCH CTL HAD ISSUED A CLRNC FOR THE ILS 26L APCH AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY HAD ISSUED A CLRNC TO FLY THE SETER 1 ARR. THEY EXPECTED US TO INITIATE OUR OWN DSCNTS TO THE MEA'S DEPICTED ON THE STAR AND TRANSITION TO THE ILS 26L APCH. THE APCH CTL SUPVR AGREED THAT THE CLRNC WAS CONFUSING AND PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THAT FORMAT. IN 25 YRS OF FLYING, I HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED A SIMILAR CLRNC, NOR HAD THE F/O IN HIS FLYING CAREER. I RECOMMEND THAT CLRNCS FOR STARS AND APCHS BE GIVEN SEPARATELY. ALSO, IN A RADAR ENVIRONMENT, I FEEL THE CTLR SHOULD GIVE DSCNT CLRNCS UNTIL ON VECTORS FOR THE FINAL APCH COURSE. IF SIMILAR CLRNCS WILL BE ISSUED IN THE FUTURE, THE APCH PLATES SHOULD SHOW A MORE DETAILED DEPICTION AND NARRATIVE SIMILAR TO A PROFILE DSCNT.

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.