Narrative:

We operated air carrier flight to lax. We were filed over civet to lax. We were aware that landing west we could anticipate either the civet 4 arrival or the mitts 1 arrival, both of which start over the civet intersection. We tried to find out which one to anticipate from ZLA, but were told we would be assigned by approach. This leaves a lot of changes and briefings to be made to a very late point in an approach at a very busy airport. At other airports, we can change runways but we are normally on the same arrival. By knowing the arrival, that gives us time to brief and change the runway. I had never flown the mitts 1, but I felt like I was well prepared. When we contacted approach at lax, we were told to anticipate the mitts 1 arrival. At that point, we had previously been cleared direct to civet. The first officer started to program the mitts 1 and had trouble because snrkl intersection did not come up on 2 separate attempts, so he had to build it manually. This further delayed our other duties. During this time I heard the controller tell us to intercept runway 24R localizer. I interpreted this to mean as assigned by the mitts 1 after civet per the arrival. The first officer tried to verify our questions but was not able to get communication with the controller. The controller stated, 'I need to talk,' so we flew what we were last cleared to do. I now believe the controller wanted us to intercept runway 24R localizer and go direct snrkl, but this would have eliminated civet totally, which has mandatory altitudes. We were told we were left of course for runway 24R, which we would be over civet until we completed our turn to 253 degrees and intercepted runway 24R. We need to be assigned the arrival earlier for safety. We need to be able to clarify clrncs. I believe civet should not be a fix on both the mitts 1 and the civet 4 -- especially if the controller intends to use the arrs from beyond civet to run parallel traffic. I spent quite some time thinking over our approach clearance and how I might better have anticipated what the controller wanted. I finally gave up trying to figure it out and called a supervisor at lax approach control. I feel that on my next approach to lax, I will load civet 4 and convert it to runway 25L in route 1. I will also load mitts 1 in route 2 and tie it to runway 24R and plan to not go over civet. We still need time to verify clrncs, brief approachs, and run our cockpit duties, plus have time to handle little disturbances in our timing, like no snrkl. This is not safe.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757 PIC'S ACCOUNTING OF FLC CONFUSION DURING AN APCH INTO LAX USING THE STAR ARRS. EPISODE RESULTED IN A CLRNC DEV REGARDING THE RTE.

Narrative: WE OPERATED ACR FLT TO LAX. WE WERE FILED OVER CIVET TO LAX. WE WERE AWARE THAT LNDG W WE COULD ANTICIPATE EITHER THE CIVET 4 ARR OR THE MITTS 1 ARR, BOTH OF WHICH START OVER THE CIVET INTXN. WE TRIED TO FIND OUT WHICH ONE TO ANTICIPATE FROM ZLA, BUT WERE TOLD WE WOULD BE ASSIGNED BY APCH. THIS LEAVES A LOT OF CHANGES AND BRIEFINGS TO BE MADE TO A VERY LATE POINT IN AN APCH AT A VERY BUSY ARPT. AT OTHER ARPTS, WE CAN CHANGE RWYS BUT WE ARE NORMALLY ON THE SAME ARR. BY KNOWING THE ARR, THAT GIVES US TIME TO BRIEF AND CHANGE THE RWY. I HAD NEVER FLOWN THE MITTS 1, BUT I FELT LIKE I WAS WELL PREPARED. WHEN WE CONTACTED APCH AT LAX, WE WERE TOLD TO ANTICIPATE THE MITTS 1 ARR. AT THAT POINT, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CLRED DIRECT TO CIVET. THE FO STARTED TO PROGRAM THE MITTS 1 AND HAD TROUBLE BECAUSE SNRKL INTXN DID NOT COME UP ON 2 SEPARATE ATTEMPTS, SO HE HAD TO BUILD IT MANUALLY. THIS FURTHER DELAYED OUR OTHER DUTIES. DURING THIS TIME I HEARD THE CTLR TELL US TO INTERCEPT RWY 24R LOC. I INTERPED THIS TO MEAN AS ASSIGNED BY THE MITTS 1 AFTER CIVET PER THE ARR. THE FO TRIED TO VERIFY OUR QUESTIONS BUT WAS NOT ABLE TO GET COM WITH THE CTLR. THE CTLR STATED, 'I NEED TO TALK,' SO WE FLEW WHAT WE WERE LAST CLRED TO DO. I NOW BELIEVE THE CTLR WANTED US TO INTERCEPT RWY 24R LOC AND GO DIRECT SNRKL, BUT THIS WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED CIVET TOTALLY, WHICH HAS MANDATORY ALTS. WE WERE TOLD WE WERE L OF COURSE FOR RWY 24R, WHICH WE WOULD BE OVER CIVET UNTIL WE COMPLETED OUR TURN TO 253 DEGS AND INTERCEPTED RWY 24R. WE NEED TO BE ASSIGNED THE ARR EARLIER FOR SAFETY. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CLARIFY CLRNCS. I BELIEVE CIVET SHOULD NOT BE A FIX ON BOTH THE MITTS 1 AND THE CIVET 4 -- ESPECIALLY IF THE CTLR INTENDS TO USE THE ARRS FROM BEYOND CIVET TO RUN PARALLEL TFC. I SPENT QUITE SOME TIME THINKING OVER OUR APCH CLRNC AND HOW I MIGHT BETTER HAVE ANTICIPATED WHAT THE CTLR WANTED. I FINALLY GAVE UP TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT AND CALLED A SUPVR AT LAX APCH CTL. I FEEL THAT ON MY NEXT APCH TO LAX, I WILL LOAD CIVET 4 AND CONVERT IT TO RWY 25L IN RTE 1. I WILL ALSO LOAD MITTS 1 IN RTE 2 AND TIE IT TO RWY 24R AND PLAN TO NOT GO OVER CIVET. WE STILL NEED TIME TO VERIFY CLRNCS, BRIEF APCHS, AND RUN OUR COCKPIT DUTIES, PLUS HAVE TIME TO HANDLE LITTLE DISTURBANCES IN OUR TIMING, LIKE NO SNRKL. THIS IS NOT SAFE.

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.