Narrative:

After holding at fuzzy intersection because of a 1 runway operation at las airport, we were cleared direct to las and switched to las approach control. Approach control told us to expect the visual approach to runway 19L and reclred us to reintercept the fuzzy 4 arrival. We switched control frequencys and were given radar vectors and slowed for sequencing. It appeared to both the captain and myself that we were being vectored for runway 25L instead of runway 19L. We were now downwind abeam the runway 25L numbers. I questioned the controller on which runway we were being vectored and what approach to expect. He asked us if we could accept a visual approach to runway 25L. We accepted the clearance to runway 25L and approach control slowed us to 180 KTS and turned us on a high tight left base for runway 25L. We configured the aircraft, gear down and flaps 3 degrees. I entered the runway and performance information into the FMC and communicated with ATC. As we turned final, I pointed out the traffic southwest of the runway 25 numbers and tried to communicate twice with ATC acknowledging the traffic crossing the runway 25L numbers. We were told to switch to tower. At this time, we were too high to make a normal, safe visual approach, so we asked for left 360 degree turn to lose altitude. The tower told us to fly runway heading and keep descending for traffic. We complied and descended to 3500 ft. Both of us were aware of the other aircraft's position relative to our vertical and horizontal position. I verbally cued the captain on the separation of the crossing traffic as we were descending toward runway 25L as instructed by the tower. At no time did we deviation from standard procedures or instructions from ATC. We as a crew were visually aware of the other aircraft's position at all times during our go around procedure. In my opinion, it would have been better judgement to decline the visual approach to runway 25L. Especially considering the congestion of the ATC terminal environment and the workload of both the flight crew and the controllers. We were told to expect a visual approach to runway 19L and we were vectored toward another runway. Within 20 mi of the airport we switched 3 times between controllers and had our arrival procedure changed 3 times. Las approach control was extremely busy vectoring aircraft in the approach corridor. I tried to call out the traffic southwest of our position when we initially turned final but the frequency was too busy and I was blocked out by other aircraft. We had the proper separation on the other aircraft as it crossed the runway 25 numbers for runway 19L. As airports across the country become more and more saturated with air traffic, both controller's and pilot's demands to perform become higher. It is important not to accept or offer a clearance that is different from the original clearance if time does not permit a proper briefing. Communication between pilots and controllers in regard to a change in a clearance should be clarified at the earliest possible time so both parties can properly plan ahead.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ARRIVING A320 CREW IS VECTORED INTO A TIGHT BASE, TOO HIGH FOR APCH, AFTER GETTING MULTIPLE ARR PROCS AND RWY CHANGES ARRIVING LAS, NV.

Narrative: AFTER HOLDING AT FUZZY INTXN BECAUSE OF A 1 RWY OP AT LAS ARPT, WE WERE CLRED DIRECT TO LAS AND SWITCHED TO LAS APCH CTL. APCH CTL TOLD US TO EXPECT THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19L AND RECLRED US TO REINTERCEPT THE FUZZY 4 ARR. WE SWITCHED CTL FREQS AND WERE GIVEN RADAR VECTORS AND SLOWED FOR SEQUENCING. IT APPEARED TO BOTH THE CAPT AND MYSELF THAT WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR RWY 25L INSTEAD OF RWY 19L. WE WERE NOW DOWNWIND ABEAM THE RWY 25L NUMBERS. I QUESTIONED THE CTLR ON WHICH RWY WE WERE BEING VECTORED AND WHAT APCH TO EXPECT. HE ASKED US IF WE COULD ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25L. WE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC TO RWY 25L AND APCH CTL SLOWED US TO 180 KTS AND TURNED US ON A HIGH TIGHT L BASE FOR RWY 25L. WE CONFIGURED THE ACFT, GEAR DOWN AND FLAPS 3 DEGS. I ENTERED THE RWY AND PERFORMANCE INFO INTO THE FMC AND COMMUNICATED WITH ATC. AS WE TURNED FINAL, I POINTED OUT THE TFC SW OF THE RWY 25 NUMBERS AND TRIED TO COMMUNICATE TWICE WITH ATC ACKNOWLEDGING THE TFC XING THE RWY 25L NUMBERS. WE WERE TOLD TO SWITCH TO TWR. AT THIS TIME, WE WERE TOO HIGH TO MAKE A NORMAL, SAFE VISUAL APCH, SO WE ASKED FOR L 360 DEG TURN TO LOSE ALT. THE TWR TOLD US TO FLY RWY HDG AND KEEP DSNDING FOR TFC. WE COMPLIED AND DSNDED TO 3500 FT. BOTH OF US WERE AWARE OF THE OTHER ACFT'S POS RELATIVE TO OUR VERT AND HORIZ POS. I VERBALLY CUED THE CAPT ON THE SEPARATION OF THE XING TFC AS WE WERE DSNDING TOWARD RWY 25L AS INSTRUCTED BY THE TWR. AT NO TIME DID WE DEV FROM STANDARD PROCS OR INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC. WE AS A CREW WERE VISUALLY AWARE OF THE OTHER ACFT'S POS AT ALL TIMES DURING OUR GAR PROC. IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER JUDGEMENT TO DECLINE THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25L. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE CONGESTION OF THE ATC TERMINAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE WORKLOAD OF BOTH THE FLC AND THE CTLRS. WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19L AND WE WERE VECTORED TOWARD ANOTHER RWY. WITHIN 20 MI OF THE ARPT WE SWITCHED 3 TIMES BTWN CTLRS AND HAD OUR ARR PROC CHANGED 3 TIMES. LAS APCH CTL WAS EXTREMELY BUSY VECTORING ACFT IN THE APCH CORRIDOR. I TRIED TO CALL OUT THE TFC SW OF OUR POS WHEN WE INITIALLY TURNED FINAL BUT THE FREQ WAS TOO BUSY AND I WAS BLOCKED OUT BY OTHER ACFT. WE HAD THE PROPER SEPARATION ON THE OTHER ACFT AS IT CROSSED THE RWY 25 NUMBERS FOR RWY 19L. AS ARPTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY BECOME MORE AND MORE SATURATED WITH AIR TFC, BOTH CTLR'S AND PLT'S DEMANDS TO PERFORM BECOME HIGHER. IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO ACCEPT OR OFFER A CLRNC THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL CLRNC IF TIME DOES NOT PERMIT A PROPER BRIEFING. COM BTWN PLTS AND CTLRS IN REGARD TO A CHANGE IN A CLRNC SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME SO BOTH PARTIES CAN PROPERLY PLAN AHEAD.

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.