Narrative:

We were on a flight from anc to jnu. Reaching cruise altitude, we requested clearance direct yak, J541, fakes intersection, mendn 2 arrival to cushi intersection for the rnp RNAV runway 8 approach to jnu. Zan approved our request and told us to contact zan on another frequency passing fakes to request descent. When we did so, zan told us we were #1 for the airport and cleared us for the lda 2 runway 8 approach. We requested the rnp RNAV runway 8 approach and were told we would have to hold. We could not understand why we could be #1 for the lda but have to hold for the rnp since both approachs follow the same route to the airport. The controller refused to give us an explanation and since we were now well established on the arrival, out of radar contact, we accepted the lda approach from cushi intersection. After looking closer at the lda approach plate, I noticed that cushi is not listed as an IAF for a no pt approach, however it is an IAF for a no pt on the mendn 2 arrival transition to the rnp approach. We were so busy discussing the approach clearance confusion with zan, reprogramming the FMC for a new approach, briefing the approach, trying to configure for a higher than normal crossing altitude restr at cushi, that we overlooked an important difference between the 2 approachs. This demonstrates once again that if I have a problem with a controller's clearance, the time to deal with it is on the ground with a phone call rather than in the air over the radio. Also, if there is a change from a clearance or approach I am expecting, to take the time required to fully note any differences between the two. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: an interview with the reporter found there is a great deal of confusion, or resistance to the requested rnp approach to jnu. The issued lda approach seemed to indicate ARTCC was somewhat familiar with the airline approved rnp approach as it involved a fix on the rnp but not the lda approach. The flight crew flew the approach as issued without realizing it may not have been an authority/authorized procedure. There seems to have been an ARTCC issue with the rnp approach that the reporter was unsure of. Although the rnp approach provides a missed approach route that does not involve a course reversal, that frees the inbound course for subsequent arrs, there seems to be a resistance toward acceptance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-400 FLC FLEW AN APCH TO JNU THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN APPROVED APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE ON A FLT FROM ANC TO JNU. REACHING CRUISE ALT, WE REQUESTED CLRNC DIRECT YAK, J541, FAKES INTXN, MENDN 2 ARR TO CUSHI INTXN FOR THE RNP RNAV RWY 8 APCH TO JNU. ZAN APPROVED OUR REQUEST AND TOLD US TO CONTACT ZAN ON ANOTHER FREQ PASSING FAKES TO REQUEST DSCNT. WHEN WE DID SO, ZAN TOLD US WE WERE #1 FOR THE ARPT AND CLRED US FOR THE LDA 2 RWY 8 APCH. WE REQUESTED THE RNP RNAV RWY 8 APCH AND WERE TOLD WE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD. WE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE COULD BE #1 FOR THE LDA BUT HAVE TO HOLD FOR THE RNP SINCE BOTH APCHS FOLLOW THE SAME RTE TO THE ARPT. THE CTLR REFUSED TO GIVE US AN EXPLANATION AND SINCE WE WERE NOW WELL ESTABLISHED ON THE ARR, OUT OF RADAR CONTACT, WE ACCEPTED THE LDA APCH FROM CUSHI INTXN. AFTER LOOKING CLOSER AT THE LDA APCH PLATE, I NOTICED THAT CUSHI IS NOT LISTED AS AN IAF FOR A NO PT APCH, HOWEVER IT IS AN IAF FOR A NO PT ON THE MENDN 2 ARR TRANSITION TO THE RNP APCH. WE WERE SO BUSY DISCUSSING THE APCH CLRNC CONFUSION WITH ZAN, REPROGRAMMING THE FMC FOR A NEW APCH, BRIEFING THE APCH, TRYING TO CONFIGURE FOR A HIGHER THAN NORMAL XING ALT RESTR AT CUSHI, THAT WE OVERLOOKED AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BTWN THE 2 APCHS. THIS DEMONSTRATES ONCE AGAIN THAT IF I HAVE A PROB WITH A CTLR'S CLRNC, THE TIME TO DEAL WITH IT IS ON THE GND WITH A PHONE CALL RATHER THAN IN THE AIR OVER THE RADIO. ALSO, IF THERE IS A CHANGE FROM A CLRNC OR APCH I AM EXPECTING, TO TAKE THE TIME REQUIRED TO FULLY NOTE ANY DIFFERENCES BTWN THE TWO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE RPTR FOUND THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION, OR RESISTANCE TO THE REQUESTED RNP APCH TO JNU. THE ISSUED LDA APCH SEEMED TO INDICATE ARTCC WAS SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH THE AIRLINE APPROVED RNP APCH AS IT INVOLVED A FIX ON THE RNP BUT NOT THE LDA APCH. THE FLC FLEW THE APCH AS ISSUED WITHOUT REALIZING IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AN AUTH PROC. THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN AN ARTCC ISSUE WITH THE RNP APCH THAT THE RPTR WAS UNSURE OF. ALTHOUGH THE RNP APCH PROVIDES A MISSED APCH RTE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE A COURSE REVERSAL, THAT FREES THE INBOUND COURSE FOR SUBSEQUENT ARRS, THERE SEEMS TO BE A RESISTANCE TOWARD ACCEPTANCE.

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.