New arrs cause flight crew confusion.

Attributes
ACN	321497
Time
Date	199511
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : slc
State Reference	UT
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	cruise other
Route In Use	arrival star : star enroute airway : slc
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 230 flight time total : 6000 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	321497
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

I am concerned about the 2 new arrs into slc, the jammn 1 and the spane 1 (dated nov/xa/95 and nov/xb/95). These arrs are readable and understandable as I situation here at my desk with zero airspeed and no distractions. However as speed and distractions increase, the potential to misread or misunderstand these arrs takes an exponential increase. In my opinion, an arrival which involves 'unspoken' mandatory crossing altitudes should be simple (examples: civet 1 to runway 25L at lax or mudde 1 to runway 25R at lax). The jammn and spane require a great deal of time reading the approach while flying it, to ensure compliance. I offer a solution: make each arrival into 2 separate arrs, one landing to the north and a separate arrival landing south. This will simplify the arrival and cut down on reading required thus allowing me to look outside the cockpit. I have flown both arrs numerous times.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NEW ARRS CAUSE FLC CONFUSION.

Narrative: I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE 2 NEW ARRS INTO SLC, THE JAMMN 1 AND THE SPANE 1 (DATED NOV/XA/95 AND NOV/XB/95). THESE ARRS ARE READABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE AS I SIT HERE AT MY DESK WITH ZERO AIRSPD AND NO DISTRACTIONS. HOWEVER AS SPD AND DISTRACTIONS INCREASE, THE POTENTIAL TO MISREAD OR MISUNDERSTAND THESE ARRS TAKES AN EXPONENTIAL INCREASE. IN MY OPINION, AN ARR WHICH INVOLVES 'UNSPOKEN' MANDATORY XING ALTS SHOULD BE SIMPLE (EXAMPLES: CIVET 1 TO RWY 25L AT LAX OR MUDDE 1 TO RWY 25R AT LAX). THE JAMMN AND SPANE REQUIRE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME READING THE APCH WHILE FLYING IT, TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE. I OFFER A SOLUTION: MAKE EACH ARR INTO 2 SEPARATE ARRS, ONE LNDG TO THE N AND A SEPARATE ARR LNDG S. THIS WILL SIMPLIFY THE ARR AND CUT DOWN ON READING REQUIRED THUS ALLOWING ME TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE COCKPIT. I HAVE FLOWN BOTH ARRS NUMEROUS TIMES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.