Narrative:

I programmed the ILS17L to aus at the gate. On receiving ATIS; visual approaches with the RNAV approaches on request were in use. I briefed and talked with the first officer (first officer) about the approach and decided to setup for the RNAV rnpz 17L. We were on the WLEEE4 RNAV arrival. Center started us down late behind a 737 descending for aus. We were given 'descend via' and were told to slow; level and then descend via clearance was reissued. We could see that we were right behind the 737 at 4 miles. Once we checked on the approach frequency; first officer checked on '[callsign] with you at 4000; request rnp RNAV 17L' and I don't recall [the first officer] acknowledging the approach but I do remember ATC giving us a speed and/or altitude change to 2500 I believe. I saw the 737 break away to the north and assumed he was going to 17R. It was then I realized; did [ATC] clear us for the RNAV rnpz? I directed the first officer to verify as we were approaching xwing intersection which was the if. First officer waited to get a word in but made contact and we still had the RNAV rnpz curved approach still in the FMS. ATC confirmed 'no you must fly the arrival.' xwing is still a point on the RNAV arrival. As we were descending through 3100 [feet]; ATC directed us to turn north and climb back to 3300 feet. Back and forth on the radio discussion began about what we were cleared for and I heard a momentary TCAS TA to my left. (According to approach it was a 737 on arrival). I took off the autopilot and started the turn north as I noticed the airspeed decreasing towards the hook. My belief was the airplane was slowing to speed over the fix on the RNAV rnp. I manually disengaged all auto settings and hand flew the airplane. I was startled by all of this sensory overload. Wrong approach; a TA; turn right; getting slow without any input; but managed to get control of the airspeed as we leveled at 3300 feet. Controller turned us left to a 260 heading I believe and cleared us for a visual once clear of traffic and pointed the airport was at our 9 o'clock. First officer dialed in ILS and we continued. We were given a 190 heading to intercept I believe and once almost established on inbound course of 175; were lased from the right side (west of final) by a momentary bright green flash which illuminated the cockpit. First officer called out the PIREP and we landed without further incident. First comment. We had assumption bias for the RNAV rnp 17L because it seems airports are now advertising RNAV approaches which are more work intensive and the ILS's are on but never talked about. This is nextgen throughput issues and it forces us into bad setups like this instead of a vector to final approach to engage an ILS. Second; we should have verified; confirmed and triple checked that what we had in the mcdu was what we were cleared for. It hit me late that maybe we should have verified; but we nonetheless tried to confirm but radio calls were tough to get in that night. Third; this RNAV approach has a sneaky tie-in that does not have a discontinuity in the path so I was just thinking yeah; this is where we need to be. The RNAV STAR shares a common fix that is almost directly over the final approach. At xwing; you either turn left and descend to the runway or you turn right (north) on for an eventual vector to final. If someone else makes the same mistake we made; it is just too close to the final and it puts all parties in a bad spot for loss of separation. That should be redesigned. Finally; this push to have us do RNAV approaches has burned me to a point where I will not be eager to do an RNAV rnp if a regular ILS is available. Due to the programming issues and routings; this [type of] approach where the controllers expect us to make turns needs to [be] looked at for equivalent safety compared to vectors for an ILS. I have learned a valuable lesson. Do not assume you are cleared for anything and verify if you are unsure. Laser? Not much to say other than good thing it wasn'tdirectly in line of sight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Captain reported track and altitude deviations occurred on an RNAV approach to AUS following confusion over the clearance received.

Narrative: I programmed the ILS17L to AUS at the gate. On receiving ATIS; visual approaches with the RNAV approaches on request were in use. I briefed and talked with the First Officer (FO) about the approach and decided to setup for the RNAV RNPZ 17L. We were on the WLEEE4 RNAV arrival. Center started us down late behind a 737 descending for AUS. We were given 'Descend VIA' and were told to slow; level and then descend via clearance was reissued. We could see that we were right behind the 737 at 4 miles. Once we checked on the approach frequency; First Officer checked on '[Callsign] with you at 4000; request RNP RNAV 17L' and I don't recall [the F/O] acknowledging the approach but I do remember ATC giving us a speed and/or altitude change to 2500 I believe. I saw the 737 break away to the north and assumed he was going to 17R. It was then I realized; did [ATC] clear us for the RNAV RNPZ? I directed the First Officer to verify as we were approaching XWING intersection which was the IF. First Officer waited to get a word in but made contact and we still had the RNAV RNPZ curved approach still in the FMS. ATC confirmed 'no you must fly the arrival.' XWING is still a point on the RNAV arrival. As we were descending through 3100 [feet]; ATC directed us to turn north and climb back to 3300 feet. Back and forth on the radio discussion began about what we were cleared for and I heard a momentary TCAS TA to my left. (According to Approach it was a 737 on arrival). I took off the autopilot and started the turn north as I noticed the airspeed decreasing towards the hook. My belief was the airplane was slowing to speed over the fix on the RNAV RNP. I manually disengaged all auto settings and hand flew the airplane. I was startled by all of this sensory overload. Wrong approach; a TA; turn right; getting slow without any input; but managed to get control of the airspeed as we leveled at 3300 feet. Controller turned us left to a 260 heading I believe and cleared us for a visual once clear of traffic and pointed the airport was at our 9 o'clock. FO dialed in ILS and we continued. We were given a 190 heading to intercept I believe and once almost established on inbound course of 175; were lased from the right side (west of final) by a momentary bright green flash which illuminated the cockpit. First Officer called out the PIREP and we landed without further incident. First comment. We had assumption bias for the RNAV RNP 17L because it seems airports are now advertising RNAV approaches which are more work intensive and the ILS's are on but never talked about. This is NextGen throughput issues and it forces us into bad setups like this instead of a vector to final approach to engage an ILS. Second; we should have verified; confirmed and triple checked that what we had in the MCDU was what we were cleared for. It hit me late that maybe we should have verified; but we nonetheless tried to confirm but radio calls were tough to get in that night. Third; this RNAV approach has a sneaky tie-in that does not have a discontinuity in the path so I was just thinking yeah; this is where we need to be. The RNAV STAR shares a common fix that is almost directly over the final approach. At XWING; you either turn left and descend to the runway or you turn right (north) on for an eventual vector to final. If someone else makes the same mistake we made; it is just too close to the final and it puts all parties in a bad spot for loss of separation. That should be redesigned. Finally; this push to have us do RNAV approaches has burned me to a point where I will not be eager to do an RNAV RNP if a regular ILS is available. Due to the programming issues and routings; this [type of] approach where the controllers expect us to make turns needs to [be] looked at for equivalent safety compared to vectors for an ILS. I have learned a valuable lesson. Do not assume you are cleared for anything and verify if you are unsure. Laser? Not much to say other than good thing it wasn'tdirectly in line of sight.

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.