Narrative:

Descending on the jingl 5 arrival; we checked on with miami approach (133.77) and requested the RNAV rnp Z 28R at fll. We were told to 'expect' that approach. We linked the RNAV Z 28R with the jingl 5 RNAV arrival at bepac intersection. Bepac is the last waypoint on the jingle 5 arrival and is also the if for the RNAV Z 28R.we were then switched to approach on 133.72. Passing bepac; the aircraft joined the RNAV course and continued on the downwind leg. ATC was very busy at the time which may have added to the situation. Upon passing cusra intersection; the FMC and autopilot began arcing right to join the final approach course for 28R.that's when the first officer and I had a discussion about how this approach was going to work; as there was a long line of traffic already on the final approach path; extending well beyond the point we would be joining final.since ATC was so busy; we couldn't query our situation. We were not in conflict with other traffic even as we were turning to join final because we were level at 4;000 feet and the traffic on final was below 3;000 feet. Finally ATC gave us new instructions (which I don't recall the details of) and we used the opportunity to verify that we were on the RNAV Z approach. ATC immediately told us; 'no; turn to a heading of 070 degrees.' we immediately turned back to a downwind and heading of 070 and the rest of the flight went without a hiccup; as we were vectored for a visual approach using the ILS as a backup. ATC apologized to us for the confusion.we were maintaining 4;000 feet as assigned; and it is only our lateral clearance that is in question.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing a heading deviation while on the RNAV Z 28R approach to FLL due to procedure confusion and communication issues with ATC. The crew stated high traffic volume hindered the ability to clarify the situation with ATC.

Narrative: Descending on the JINGL 5 Arrival; we checked on with MIAMI Approach (133.77) and requested the RNAV RNP Z 28R at FLL. We were told to 'expect' that approach. We linked the RNAV Z 28R with the JINGL 5 RNAV Arrival at BEPAC intersection. BEPAC is the last waypoint on the JINGLE 5 Arrival and is also the IF for the RNAV Z 28R.We were then switched to approach on 133.72. Passing BEPAC; the aircraft joined the RNAV course and continued on the downwind leg. ATC was very busy at the time which may have added to the situation. Upon passing CUSRA intersection; the FMC and autopilot began arcing right to join the final approach course for 28R.That's when the First Officer and I had a discussion about how this approach was going to work; as there was a long line of traffic already on the final approach path; extending well beyond the point we would be joining final.Since ATC was so busy; we couldn't query our situation. We were not in conflict with other traffic even as we were turning to join final because we were level at 4;000 feet and the traffic on final was below 3;000 feet. Finally ATC gave us new instructions (which I don't recall the details of) and we used the opportunity to verify that we were on the RNAV Z Approach. ATC immediately told us; 'No; turn to a heading of 070 degrees.' We immediately turned back to a downwind and heading of 070 and the rest of the flight went without a hiccup; as we were vectored for a visual approach using the ILS as a backup. ATC apologized to us for the confusion.We were maintaining 4;000 feet as assigned; and it is only our lateral clearance that is in question.

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.