Narrative:

During our arrival to iah; we had the doobi 2 RNAV arrival set for runway 27 landing. As we contacted houston center they re-cleared us to descend via the ZEEKK1; proceed direct to zeekk and descend via the ZEEKK1 arrival. The pace of the clearance was quick but understood. This does take a few minutes to reprogram the arrival and change the runway since it is runway specific and then re-verify within the FMGC for correctness. Luckily by the time that was accomplished this; we weren't late in beginning our descent. Then as we were descending ATC directed us to reduce our speed to 250; we were still at 280 as the procedure directs (again noted but nonstandard) and this put us in a position where we would not be able to comply with the descend via. ATC cannot expect to change the parameters of these arrivals and expect that the crossing and speeds down line can be maintained. We advised ATC of our inability to comply and they then gave us a heading to descend on at 280 knots but forgot to give us an altitude to descend to; since we were no longer on the arrival. We asked them for an altitude which we then set. Shortly after we were re-cleared to zeekk and given the descend via. We then switched over to approach control and were given 27L which again required us to reprogram the FMGC for the different transition and again verify altitudes and such to make sure we complied with the new information. These arrivals in iah are non-standard and very labor intensive. The notes on the arrivals are not easily found and directions to program a runway which you are not planning on using make it impossible to fully brief and program the approach until you are low in a high workload environment already. This is another example of how the descend via and climb via procedures are poorly implemented and leaving our flight crews at risk for deviations. As an additional note we were not going to be able to comply with the level off at hooti and the speed reduction without using speed brakes; which on an A320 may require us to disengage the autopilot also increasing workload on our flight crews. These arrivals in iah are not well designed and require too much reprogramming and have too many pitfalls all which make them a high probability of having flight crews make a mistake and maybe lose separation with other aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 Captain reported receiving multiple runway and arrival changes on approach to IAH; resulting in increased workload and distractions.

Narrative: During our arrival to IAH; we had the DOOBI 2 RNAV arrival set for runway 27 landing. As we contacted Houston center they re-cleared us to descend via the ZEEKK1; proceed direct to ZEEKK and descend via the ZEEKK1 arrival. The pace of the clearance was quick but understood. This does take a few minutes to reprogram the arrival and change the runway since it is runway specific and then re-verify within the FMGC for correctness. Luckily by the time that was accomplished this; we weren't late in beginning our descent. Then as we were descending ATC directed us to reduce our speed to 250; we were still at 280 as the procedure directs (again noted but nonstandard) and this put us in a position where we would not be able to comply with the descend via. ATC cannot expect to change the parameters of these arrivals and expect that the crossing and speeds down line can be maintained. We advised ATC of our inability to comply and they then gave us a heading to descend on at 280 knots but forgot to give us an altitude to descend to; since we were no longer on the arrival. We asked them for an altitude which we then set. Shortly after we were re-cleared to ZEEKK and given the descend via. We then switched over to approach control and were given 27L which again required us to reprogram the FMGC for the different transition and again verify altitudes and such to make sure we complied with the new information. These arrivals in IAH are non-standard and very labor intensive. The notes on the arrivals are not easily found and directions to program a runway which you are not planning on using make it impossible to fully brief and program the approach until you are low in a high workload environment already. This is another example of how the descend VIA and climb VIA procedures are poorly implemented and leaving our flight crews at risk for deviations. As an additional note we were not going to be able to comply with the level off at HOOTI and the speed reduction without using speed brakes; which on an A320 may require us to disengage the autopilot also increasing workload on our flight crews. These arrivals in IAH are not well designed and require too much reprogramming and have too many pitfalls all which make them a high probability of having flight crews make a mistake and maybe lose separation with other aircraft.

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.