Narrative:

During approach into dca, there was cockpit confusion as to which approach we were to conduct. The ATIS was calling the rosslyn lda to runway 19. The only lda chart we have is the lda DME 19. The rosslyn and lda/DME approachs, while both lda approachs, use different frequencys, have different inbound courses, and the 2 lda transmitters are not co-located. We inadvertently loaded and briefed the lda/DME 19 approach (it is the only lda 19 plate issued to airbus crews). On base leg at 3000 ft MSL, I noted that we were not receiving an identify for the lda. I asked the controller, who stated that the rosslyn lda was in use. We requested an immediate break off from the approach, and vectors to the RNAV 19 (the lda/DME 19 and RNAV 19 share the same approach plate). The controller (approach) was totally unaware that a RNAV 19 approach even existed (ultimately, we did convince the controller that it was a bona fide approach), but we were cleared for the RNAV 19 approach. Approach and landing were normal. I believe that a notation on the actual approach plate would be invaluable to address this. In addition, dca needs to be aware that an RNAV approach does exist, and that the ATIS should reflect as such, ie, 'rosslyn lda 19 and RNAV 19 approachs in use....' we are the one of the largest acrs currently operating out of dca. This would eliminate future confusion and the possible safety hazards involved.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 FLC CHALLENGE DCA APCH ASSIGNMENT.

Narrative: DURING APCH INTO DCA, THERE WAS COCKPIT CONFUSION AS TO WHICH APCH WE WERE TO CONDUCT. THE ATIS WAS CALLING THE ROSSLYN LDA TO RWY 19. THE ONLY LDA CHART WE HAVE IS THE LDA DME 19. THE ROSSLYN AND LDA/DME APCHS, WHILE BOTH LDA APCHS, USE DIFFERENT FREQS, HAVE DIFFERENT INBOUND COURSES, AND THE 2 LDA XMITTERS ARE NOT CO-LOCATED. WE INADVERTENTLY LOADED AND BRIEFED THE LDA/DME 19 APCH (IT IS THE ONLY LDA 19 PLATE ISSUED TO AIRBUS CREWS). ON BASE LEG AT 3000 FT MSL, I NOTED THAT WE WERE NOT RECEIVING AN IDENT FOR THE LDA. I ASKED THE CTLR, WHO STATED THAT THE ROSSLYN LDA WAS IN USE. WE REQUESTED AN IMMEDIATE BREAK OFF FROM THE APCH, AND VECTORS TO THE RNAV 19 (THE LDA/DME 19 AND RNAV 19 SHARE THE SAME APCH PLATE). THE CTLR (APCH) WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT A RNAV 19 APCH EVEN EXISTED (ULTIMATELY, WE DID CONVINCE THE CTLR THAT IT WAS A BONA FIDE APCH), BUT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE RNAV 19 APCH. APCH AND LNDG WERE NORMAL. I BELIEVE THAT A NOTATION ON THE ACTUAL APCH PLATE WOULD BE INVALUABLE TO ADDRESS THIS. IN ADDITION, DCA NEEDS TO BE AWARE THAT AN RNAV APCH DOES EXIST, AND THAT THE ATIS SHOULD REFLECT AS SUCH, IE, 'ROSSLYN LDA 19 AND RNAV 19 APCHS IN USE....' WE ARE THE ONE OF THE LARGEST ACRS CURRENTLY OPERATING OUT OF DCA. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE FUTURE CONFUSION AND THE POSSIBLE SAFETY HAZARDS INVOLVED.

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.