Crossing restr not met near las, nv. Crew complains of flight management system design.

Attributes
ACN	466400
Time
Date	200003
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : las.airport
State Reference	NV
Altitude	msl bound lower : 24000 msl bound upper : 24600
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zla.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude
Route In Use	arrival star : creso.3
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 14000 flight time type : 5500
ASRS Report	466400
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : crossing restriction not met altitude deviation : undershoot non adherence : company policies non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : insufficient time
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

This happened on the arrival to las vegas that I have flown many times before. The crossing restr was inserted in the FMC. The first officer was flying. I left the ATC frequency to get the ATIS while we were still at cruise altitude. While still off I informed the first officer of the runway in use. He inserted the new runway in the FMC. Soon thereafter he received the anticipated crossing restr and started to descend not realizing that the crossing restr had dropped out of the FMC. The FMC vertical descent path would now be about 2000 ft high. About this time I came back from getting the ATIS, gate assignment, etc. I quickly saw we were high, brought it to his attention, and told him to descend as quickly as possible. I believe we were about 600 ft high crossing the fix. While we the pilots are responsible to meet these restrs and greater situational awareness is due on my part when I am off frequency, it must be recognized that an FMC that deletes a crossing restr when a new runway is inserted is a poor design. It is working against the pilot not for him. Airbus really should change this feature.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: XING RESTR NOT MET NEAR LAS, NV. CREW COMPLAINS OF FLT MGMNT SYS DESIGN.

Narrative: THIS HAPPENED ON THE ARR TO LAS VEGAS THAT I HAVE FLOWN MANY TIMES BEFORE. THE XING RESTR WAS INSERTED IN THE FMC. THE FO WAS FLYING. I LEFT THE ATC FREQ TO GET THE ATIS WHILE WE WERE STILL AT CRUISE ALT. WHILE STILL OFF I INFORMED THE FO OF THE RWY IN USE. HE INSERTED THE NEW RWY IN THE FMC. SOON THEREAFTER HE RECEIVED THE ANTICIPATED XING RESTR AND STARTED TO DSND NOT REALIZING THAT THE XING RESTR HAD DROPPED OUT OF THE FMC. THE FMC VERT DSCNT PATH WOULD NOW BE ABOUT 2000 FT HIGH. ABOUT THIS TIME I CAME BACK FROM GETTING THE ATIS, GATE ASSIGNMENT, ETC. I QUICKLY SAW WE WERE HIGH, BROUGHT IT TO HIS ATTN, AND TOLD HIM TO DSND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I BELIEVE WE WERE ABOUT 600 FT HIGH XING THE FIX. WHILE WE THE PLTS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO MEET THESE RESTRS AND GREATER SITUATIONAL AWARENESS IS DUE ON MY PART WHEN I AM OFF FREQ, IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT AN FMC THAT DELETES A XING RESTR WHEN A NEW RWY IS INSERTED IS A POOR DESIGN. IT IS WORKING AGAINST THE PLT NOT FOR HIM. AIRBUS REALLY SHOULD CHANGE THIS FEATURE.

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.