Narrative:

Initially cleared the Barra1U arrival to mroc. At about FL200; ATC changed our arrival to Barra2U and to expect rnp approach to rwy 7. We do not have the rnp (or any rnp) approach they specified. The first officer (first officer) notified ATC we could not accept that approach. Then they gave us a different rnp to rwy 25. There is no rnp approach loaded in jeppfd-pro for any runway to mroc. They then tried to clear us for a visual; I don't remember the name; but we didn't have it. It was not the one in our ipad. Finally they assigned us the VOR DME 7 circle to land rwy 25. We had barely gotten the vordme 7 set up when; just outside otina; they cleared us for the approach. There is no transition published from otina to the vordme 7; but I had seen that there is one for the ILS DME Z rwy 7; so I joined otina to tomas on the vordme. I briefed the first officer that after we were established on the vordme to enter the cyrus visual rwy 25 (RNAV 25 in the FMC). All of that was completed and flown on VNAV/LNAV.once we were on the cyrus visual rwy 25; after we passed epabe; we began circle to the runway; starting at the specified altitude of 4000 ft. In VNAV; the aircraft began to descend; prematurely I felt; and I disconnected the autopilot at 500 ft radio altitude about half way around to the runway; leveled; continued the circle until in a position to make a normal descent to the runway. We landed normally.poor ATC commication continued on the ground with confusing and sometimes contradictory instructions (such as 'hold short of golf') when we were on golf. He meant for us to hold short of a; which we did. I had not been into mroc in some time; and have never flown the circle to land here. Being assigned several approaches that we do not have ate up valuable set up time while he kept asking us if we had this approach or that. Then; no clear transition from the vordme 7 to the cyrus visual was confusing. After landing and clearing customs; I did a little research looking for these rnp approaches we do not possess. I found at least one online; the rnp west rwy 25 (ar); which I think is one he tried to assign us. According to a jeppesen chart alert issued [three months prior]; that procedure and several others were scheduled to be canceled [later that month]. Why is ATC trying to assign us procedures that may not be active or approved?I think this airport needs another look at; more descriptive written procedures; better charting; more warning of the types of incorrect ATC instructions and clearances. Also; in hindsight; I believe I should have flown the cyrus visual rwy 25 as a circle to land vs RNAV; using altitude hold and heading sel. I honestly feel that the descriptive of the cyrus visual on the 10-7 page as an RNAV was deceptive and flying it as an RNAV using VNAV/LNAV caused the aircraft to descend prematurely.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737NG Captain reported difficulties with ATC procedures and practices at MROC led to a low altitude event on approach.

Narrative: Initially cleared the Barra1U arrival to MROC. At about FL200; ATC changed our arrival to Barra2U and to expect RNP Approach to Rwy 7. We do not have the RNP (or any RNP) approach they specified. The FO (First Officer) notified ATC we could not accept that approach. Then they gave us a different RNP to Rwy 25. There is no RNP approach loaded in JeppFD-Pro for any runway to MROC. They then tried to clear us for a visual; I don't remember the name; but we didn't have it. It was not the one in our iPad. Finally they assigned us the VOR DME 7 Circle to land Rwy 25. We had barely gotten the VORDME 7 set up when; just outside OTINA; they cleared us for the approach. There is no transition published from OTINA to the VORDME 7; but I had seen that there is one for the ILS DME Z Rwy 7; so I joined OTINA to TOMAS on the VORDME. I briefed the FO that after we were established on the VORDME to enter the CYRUS Visual Rwy 25 (RNAV 25 in the FMC). All of that was completed and flown on VNAV/LNAV.Once we were on the CYRUS Visual Rwy 25; after we passed EPABE; we began circle to the runway; starting at the specified altitude of 4000 ft. In VNAV; the aircraft began to descend; prematurely I felt; and I disconnected the autopilot at 500 ft Radio Altitude about half way around to the runway; leveled; continued the circle until in a position to make a normal descent to the runway. We landed normally.Poor ATC commication continued on the ground with confusing and sometimes contradictory instructions (such as 'hold short of Golf') when we were on Golf. He meant for us to hold short of A; which we did. I had not been into MROC in some time; and have never flown the circle to land here. Being assigned several approaches that we do not have ate up valuable set up time while he kept asking us if we had this approach or that. Then; no clear transition from the VORDME 7 to the Cyrus Visual was confusing. After landing and clearing customs; I did a little research looking for these RNP approaches we do not possess. I found at least one online; the RNP W Rwy 25 (AR); which I think is one he tried to assign us. According to a Jeppesen Chart Alert issued [three months prior]; that procedure and several others were scheduled to be canceled [later that month]. Why is ATC trying to assign us procedures that may not be active or approved?I think this airport needs another look at; more descriptive written procedures; better charting; more warning of the types of incorrect ATC instructions and clearances. Also; in hindsight; I believe I should have flown the CYRUS Visual Rwy 25 as a Circle to Land vs RNAV; using ALT HOLD and HDG SEL. I honestly feel that the descriptive of the CYRUS Visual on the 10-7 page as an RNAV was deceptive and flying it as an RNAV using VNAV/LNAV caused the aircraft to descend prematurely.

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.