B737-700 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into mdw following a late cleara...

Narrative:

It was a VFR day in mdw when the crew was arriving on the pangg 3 RNAV arrival. We briefed the ILS 4R transition and verified everything in the FMS. As the crew was approaching the olcyk waypoint (15 miles out) chicago approach gave us the RNAV Y 4R approach. The crew divided the tasks and the first officer (first officer) watched the aircraft as the captain loaded the new approach into the FMS. It was getting a little busy with an altitude change and a new frequency to chicago approach; so task management was trying to be utilized to keep us in the green. Once the crew checked in with approach; ATC cleared us for the RNAV Y 4R approach. The captain had re-briefed the new approach and verified the waypoints with the first officer as well as the altitudes and rnp value. Everything looked good and the crew verified the LNAV/VNAV on the pfd and set a lower altitude of 1700 ft in the altitude selector. Once crossing olcyk (IAF) the crew verified LNAV/VNAV and the pilot flying dialed in zeros. The pilot monitoring recognized right away that the turn did not initiate as expected and the captain disconnected the autopilot and turned towards the next fix. In the turn ATC gave us a heading to intercept the ILS 4R which was flown and nothing else was said. Once at the gate the crew debriefed themselves on why everything was verified but the turn did not happen as expected to what was programmed in the FMS. I have flown this approach numerous times and have never had this happen in the past. I understand [procedures] require some extra programming when you are changing approaches and on an arrival; but everything was verified and crosschecked as I normally do. The crew handled the situation very well by not letting the automation take control and working with ATC to correct the problem. In the future; I believe accepting these clearances close in on busy arrivals needs to be reconsidered. I thought having 15 miles would be enough time and not rush us; so this is why as a crew we proceeded on. ATC giving crews another approach on a clear VMC day is not only increases the workload for both of us but increases the threat level too.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into MDW following a late clearance change. First Officer reported late clearance changes on 'busy arrivals' can pose safety risks.

Narrative: It was a VFR day in MDW when the crew was arriving on the PANGG 3 RNAV Arrival. We briefed the ILS 4R transition and verified everything in the FMS. As the crew was approaching the OLCYK waypoint (15 miles out) Chicago Approach gave us the RNAV Y 4R Approach. The crew divided the tasks and the First Officer (F/O) watched the aircraft as the Captain loaded the new approach into the FMS. It was getting a little busy with an altitude change and a new frequency to Chicago Approach; so task management was trying to be utilized to keep us in the Green. Once the crew checked in with Approach; ATC cleared us for the RNAV Y 4R Approach. The Captain had re-briefed the new approach and verified the waypoints with the F/O as well as the altitudes and RNP value. Everything looked good and the crew verified the LNAV/VNAV on the PFD and set a lower altitude of 1700 FT in the altitude selector. Once crossing OLCYK (IAF) the Crew verified LNAV/VNAV and the Pilot Flying dialed in zeros. The Pilot Monitoring recognized right away that the turn did not initiate as expected and the Captain disconnected the autopilot and turned towards the next fix. In the turn ATC gave us a heading to intercept the ILS 4R which was flown and nothing else was said. Once at the gate the crew debriefed themselves on why everything was verified but the turn did not happen as expected to what was programmed in the FMS. I have flown this approach numerous times and have never had this happen in the past. I understand [procedures] require some extra programming when you are changing approaches and on an arrival; but everything was verified and crosschecked as I normally do. The crew handled the situation very well by not letting the automation take control and working with ATC to correct the problem. In the future; I believe accepting these clearances close in on busy arrivals needs to be reconsidered. I thought having 15 miles would be enough time and not rush us; so this is why as a crew we proceeded on. ATC giving crews another approach on a clear VMC day is not only increases the workload for both of us but increases the threat level too.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1578030
Time
Date	201809
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	MDW.Airport
State Reference	IL
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737-700
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	STAR PANGG 3
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 538 Flight Crew Type 1500
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 241
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

B737-700 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into mdw following a late clearance change. First officer reported late clearance changes on 'busy arrivals' can pose safety risks.