Narrative:

This general concern is focused on two flights in the past week. In both cases active convective activity and weather avoidance led to multiple re-routes/runway changes in the terminal area. My concern is this: in this highly dynamic environment we were several times given clearance to a fix; fly the remainder of the new STAR except comply with amending instruction. One of these; maybe even two of these situations I understand and be flexible considering the myriad of difficult requirements ATC must comply with. Keep in mind this is right after an airport runway turn-around. We are busy gophers; busy heads-down gophers reprogramming the fmgcs. Then stepping through each fix and ensuring the restriction is loaded and/or amended per the new clearance below 10;000 ft! Down as low as 4;000 ft. The most notable was on flight XXXX. Flight plan routing: kelpp.LINKK1.RWY27. We deviated between mid and iah to avoid thunderstorms. Houston ARTCC (gulf) cleared us direct peglg expect NNCEE1 runway 8R. Prior to arriving at peglg we were vectored east and back to the west for spacing and delay. Deviating around smaller cells and inbound to konzz we were painting a very large and steep gradient cell on the right traffic downwind to 8R. We queried approach twice and were told to continue for right traffic to 8R. Ambiguity! I'm not going to fly through it. Are we going to deviate south around it and come in from behind? Do we have enough fuel for that? Are we going to vector north for 8L? When we queried again we were told continue for 8R. It's getting busier and busier in the cockpit with planning. Are we at risk for outflow windshear landing east in iah? Yes! Where are we diverting to if we can't make it in or we must execute a windshear escape and bug on out of iah? Busier and busier. Queried a final time and stated we will not fly the right traffic downwind to 8R and need to consider our fuel for alternate. We are now near chken. We are instructed to take the NNCEE1 runway 8L. I believe we were at 6;000 ft. We needed that clearance the first time we queried. We had explained the cell was a no-go for us. The sheer number of re-clearances down low is a threat. I need TRACON to understand with every re-route and STAR and runway change comes a pull it up on the ipad; load it; and a verification phase which we want to do as early as possible. We have to be safe and flexible and understanding of the dynamic environment. ATC needs to rely less on 'fly to fix and descend via the remaining portion of new STAR except maintain 6;000 ft.' I feel like the time for vectors to a conga line is sometimes the better bet but for goodness sake don't give us continue toward a growing cumulonimbus with no plan for us to work with!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 Captain reported his experience after a runway change during thunderstorm conditions while on the IAH NNCEE1 STAR. I90 clearance revisions and the resultant FMC entry work created an extreme workload environment near the airport in weather below 10;000 feet.

Narrative: This general concern is focused on two flights in the past week. In both cases active convective activity and weather avoidance led to multiple re-routes/runway changes in the terminal area. My concern is this: In this highly dynamic environment we were several times given clearance to a fix; fly the remainder of the new STAR except comply with amending instruction. One of these; maybe even two of these situations I understand and be flexible considering the myriad of difficult requirements ATC must comply with. Keep in mind this is right after an airport runway turn-around. We are busy gophers; busy heads-down gophers reprogramming the FMGCs. Then stepping through each fix and ensuring the restriction is loaded and/or amended per the new clearance below 10;000 ft! Down as low as 4;000 ft. The most notable was on flight XXXX. Flight Plan routing: KELPP.LINKK1.RWY27. We deviated between MID and IAH to avoid thunderstorms. Houston ARTCC (Gulf) cleared us direct PEGLG expect NNCEE1 Runway 8R. Prior to arriving at PEGLG we were vectored east and back to the west for spacing and delay. Deviating around smaller cells and inbound to KONZZ we were painting a very large and steep gradient cell on the right traffic downwind to 8R. We queried Approach twice and were told to continue for right traffic to 8R. Ambiguity! I'm not going to fly through it. Are we going to deviate south around it and come in from behind? Do we have enough fuel for that? Are we going to vector north for 8L? When we queried again we were told continue for 8R. It's getting busier and busier in the cockpit with planning. Are we at risk for outflow windshear landing east in IAH? Yes! Where are we diverting to if we can't make it in or we must execute a windshear escape and bug on out of IAH? Busier and busier. Queried a final time and stated we will not fly the right traffic downwind to 8R and need to consider our fuel for alternate. We are now near CHKEN. We are instructed to take the NNCEE1 Runway 8L. I believe we were at 6;000 ft. We needed that clearance the first time we queried. We had explained the cell was a no-go for us. The sheer number of re-clearances down low is a threat. I need TRACON to understand with every re-route and STAR and runway change comes a pull it up on the iPad; load it; and a verification phase which we want to do as early as possible. We have to be safe and flexible and understanding of the dynamic environment. ATC needs to rely less on 'fly to fix and descend via the remaining portion of new STAR except maintain 6;000 ft.' I feel like the time for vectors to a conga line is sometimes the better bet but for goodness sake don't give us continue toward a growing cumulonimbus with no plan for us to work with!

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.