Narrative:

Location: kin NDB. WX at kin was heavy rain showers over field. VOR was OTS. Kin had us and all others stacked over kin NDB for sequence into approach. I asked kin for VOR approach with the lower minimums and more straight in approach. They said they could not allow us to do that because VOR was OTS. They asked how can you shoot the approach without a VOR. I told them we were an RNAV 'rnp' capable aircraft. They said they could not do that. We asked for holding other than the NDB because the WX was not conducive to holding there. They said we could hold 10 mi south of the NDB on the 180 degree bearing. We went there but it was equally not good. We deviated east of the 180 degree bearing to avoid a strong echo cell and tried to coordinate with ATC the need to hold further to the east but they could not allow that. We went back to the NDB and made 2 more turns in holding before cleared for the approach. We did fly a successful NDB approach to the runway and just did breakout and landed. Because of kin approach workload and the obvious confusion on their part about our capability, I did not try to convince them at that time that we could in fact fly the VOR approach as an 'rnp' approach. I dare not say to them that we don't have a single NDB receiver on the aircraft because I am not sure they would have let us fly the NDB approach at that point. This put us and the airplane in a more complicated and hazardous situation which need not have been. It was a total lack of understanding of RNAV capable aircraft. This was very unsettling to me which compounded the crew's situation in an already task saturating event.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 HAS A PROB WITH APCH CTLR WHEN ASSIGNED AN NDB HOLD AND A LATER APCH WITH THE VOR OTS AT MKJP, FO.

Narrative: LOCATION: KIN NDB. WX AT KIN WAS HVY RAIN SHOWERS OVER FIELD. VOR WAS OTS. KIN HAD US AND ALL OTHERS STACKED OVER KIN NDB FOR SEQUENCE INTO APCH. I ASKED KIN FOR VOR APCH WITH THE LOWER MINIMUMS AND MORE STRAIGHT IN APCH. THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT ALLOW US TO DO THAT BECAUSE VOR WAS OTS. THEY ASKED HOW CAN YOU SHOOT THE APCH WITHOUT A VOR. I TOLD THEM WE WERE AN RNAV 'RNP' CAPABLE ACFT. THEY SAID THEY COULD NOT DO THAT. WE ASKED FOR HOLDING OTHER THAN THE NDB BECAUSE THE WX WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO HOLDING THERE. THEY SAID WE COULD HOLD 10 MI S OF THE NDB ON THE 180 DEG BEARING. WE WENT THERE BUT IT WAS EQUALLY NOT GOOD. WE DEVIATED E OF THE 180 DEG BEARING TO AVOID A STRONG ECHO CELL AND TRIED TO COORDINATE WITH ATC THE NEED TO HOLD FURTHER TO THE E BUT THEY COULD NOT ALLOW THAT. WE WENT BACK TO THE NDB AND MADE 2 MORE TURNS IN HOLDING BEFORE CLRED FOR THE APCH. WE DID FLY A SUCCESSFUL NDB APCH TO THE RWY AND JUST DID BREAKOUT AND LANDED. BECAUSE OF KIN APCH WORKLOAD AND THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION ON THEIR PART ABOUT OUR CAPABILITY, I DID NOT TRY TO CONVINCE THEM AT THAT TIME THAT WE COULD IN FACT FLY THE VOR APCH AS AN 'RNP' APCH. I DARE NOT SAY TO THEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE NDB RECEIVER ON THE ACFT BECAUSE I AM NOT SURE THEY WOULD HAVE LET US FLY THE NDB APCH AT THAT POINT. THIS PUT US AND THE AIRPLANE IN A MORE COMPLICATED AND HAZARDOUS SIT WHICH NEED NOT HAVE BEEN. IT WAS A TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF RNAV CAPABLE ACFT. THIS WAS VERY UNSETTLING TO ME WHICH COMPOUNDED THE CREW'S SIT IN AN ALREADY TASK SATURATING EVENT.

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.