Narrative:

In reference to the company alert regarding denver simultaneous RNAV (rnp) approaches; has there been any discussion addressing the threat that current RNAV (rnp) approaches to parallel runways in denver share many of the same fixes? Please reference the FRNCH3 RNAV STAR as well as the RNAV Z approaches for 34L and 34R. Both approaches share himom; mcmul; and kugln; not to mention the 'Z' approach designation. Although it's indisputably the crew's responsibility to load and fly the correct approach; there seems a real possibility; following a change in plan from 34L to 34R; the crew could have the wrong approach in the FMC and not realize it since the next several legs page fixes would match the desired procedure. If only the legs page were looked at; both pilots might mistakenly assume the necessary change had been made. Neither the approach checklist nor its expanded flight manual text would save the crew. It seems to me we have designed our before takeoff checklist to verify the runway and SID; so why not require; on RNAV approaches; the route page match the desired approach and runway? In the case of denver; with so much attention being given to loss of aircraft separation; this could be a real contributor. Lastly; although this example references approaches to 34L and 34R transitioning from the FRNCH3 RNAV arrival; the same error potential exists when transitioning to the RNAV Z approaches to 16L and 16R from the ZPLYN3 RNAV arrival.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reported potential flight crew confusion with DEN RNAV arrivals since they share many of the same fixes.

Narrative: In reference to the company alert regarding Denver simultaneous RNAV (RNP) approaches; has there been any discussion addressing the threat that current RNAV (RNP) approaches to parallel runways in Denver share many of the same fixes? Please reference the FRNCH3 RNAV STAR as well as the RNAV Z approaches for 34L and 34R. Both approaches share HIMOM; MCMUL; and KUGLN; not to mention the 'Z' approach designation. Although it's indisputably the crew's responsibility to load and fly the correct approach; there seems a real possibility; following a change in plan from 34L to 34R; the crew could have the wrong approach in the FMC and not realize it since the next several LEGS page fixes would match the desired procedure. If only the LEGS page were looked at; both pilots might mistakenly assume the necessary change had been made. Neither the Approach Checklist nor its expanded Flight Manual text would save the crew. It seems to me we have designed our Before Takeoff Checklist to verify the runway and SID; so why not require; on RNAV approaches; the route page match the desired approach and runway? In the case of Denver; with so much attention being given to loss of aircraft separation; this could be a real contributor. Lastly; although this example references approaches to 34L and 34R transitioning from the FRNCH3 RNAV Arrival; the same error potential exists when transitioning to the RNAV Z approaches to 16L and 16R from the ZPLYN3 RNAV Arrival.

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.