Narrative:

The usual STAR RNAV arrival and approach to runway 9R into sbgr is challenging enough even under the best circumstances. It requires precise planning and execution to keep the aircraft on the correct descent profile. There is little or no room for confusion. Recently; I have noticed that since the RNAV approach was changed that some final approach controllers instructions hinder rather [than] help pilots at a point where exact altitude step downs are critical to maintaining the aircraft on the necessary profile in order to join the glideslope of the ILS for runway 9R. I have noticed repeatedly that on the uroso 1C or the utbur 1 C RNAV arrivals; the controller's instructions as you near the IAF (vusag); seem to create ambiguity. The clearance outside of position utbur initially is stated as; 'cleared uroso 1C (or utbur 1C if doing the longer arrival) and the ILS tango to runway nine right; report established'. Then; as you pass utbur (on the uroso 1C) the controller says 'now you're cleared to 6;200 feet'. Then at vusag he again says 'now you're cleared to 5;100 feet'. The altitudes are the same as on the arrival and approach. Given that; these altitude instructions can be interpreted as a change to the prior approach clearance and create confusion for crews. With the aircraft in VNAV and on the path; it can fly the profile very well with an altitude selected (i.e; touchdown elevation or minimums) in the MCP for the aircraft to fly down to capture the glideslope. But when altitude instructions are introduced at this critical point; transitioning from the STAR to the approach; it creates ambiguity and if the pilot now puts these altitudes in the MCP the aircraft is more likely to leave the path as it captures the altitude. The few seconds it takes for pilots to recognize this and set a lower altitude on the MCP leaves the aircraft higher on approach and makes it even more challenging for the pilot to re-establish the aircraft onto the profile. This all contributes to potentially unstabilized approaches which seem very common given the [published] information. Except for traffic or terrain conflicts; controllers need not introduce more instructions at this point.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767 Captain reported SBGR controllers use clearance techniques that may contribute to unstabilized approaches to Runway 09R.

Narrative: The usual STAR RNAV arrival and approach to Runway 9R into SBGR is challenging enough even under the best circumstances. It requires precise planning and execution to keep the aircraft on the correct descent profile. There is little or no room for confusion. Recently; I have noticed that since the RNAV approach was changed that some Final Approach Controllers instructions hinder rather [than] help pilots at a point where exact altitude step downs are critical to maintaining the aircraft on the necessary profile in order to join the glideslope of the ILS for Runway 9R. I have noticed repeatedly that on the UROSO 1C or the UTBUR 1 C RNAV Arrivals; the Controller's instructions as you near the IAF (VUSAG); seem to create ambiguity. The clearance outside of position UTBUR initially is stated as; 'cleared UROSO 1C (or UTBUR 1C if doing the longer arrival) and the ILS TANGO to Runway Nine Right; report established'. Then; as you pass UTBUR (on the UROSO 1C) the Controller says 'now you're cleared to 6;200 feet'. Then at VUSAG he again says 'now you're cleared to 5;100 feet'. The altitudes are the same as on the arrival and approach. Given that; these altitude instructions can be interpreted as a change to the prior approach clearance and create confusion for crews. With the aircraft in VNAV and on the PATH; it can fly the profile very well with an altitude selected (i.e; touchdown elevation or minimums) in the MCP for the aircraft to fly down to capture the glideslope. But when altitude instructions are introduced at this critical point; transitioning from the STAR to the Approach; it creates ambiguity and if the pilot now puts these altitudes in the MCP the aircraft is more likely to leave the path as it captures the altitude. The few seconds it takes for pilots to recognize this and set a lower altitude on the MCP leaves the aircraft higher on approach and makes it even more challenging for the pilot to re-establish the aircraft onto the profile. This all contributes to potentially unstabilized approaches which seem very common given the [published] information. Except for traffic or terrain conflicts; controllers need not introduce more instructions at this point.

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.