Narrative:

ATC follies part...? We had been cleared for the seavu arrival on original flight plan clearance. This arrival had been programmed; reviewed; and confirmed in the CDU. Course we both knew better and had the paradise; civet; and seavu plates out; and had even discussed how ATC can turn the descent instantly into a goat rope. Ha! We are ready for them. Not! We were then given the civet arrival so we programmed; reviewed; and confirmed again. We had selected runway 25L. From the top of descent we had been given the obligatory s-turns and multiple speed changes. We had not been given descend via; only gramm at FL190 and normal speed 180 KTS (6 mi per min -- stuff happening really fast between gramm and civet). 2-3 mi from rustt we were given descend via the civet for runway 24R. Great -- here we go. I begin programming the runway change and get a route discontinuity on the FMC and I quickly realize the PF has a route discontinuity too. I tell him to turn 20 degrees right (direct civet) and close the discontinuity. ATC 'sees us drifting left of course.' yeah; no (expletive); 'even though we are in a turn direct to civet as required. She asked us if we can go direct to skoll and we respond in the affirmative. Cleared direct skoll; at 10000 ft; and a frequency change to the third socal person. PF rapidly getting behind aircraft and I can't talk; tune; navigation fast enough. Socal clears us for the ILS runway 24R. We are 35 mi from the field and the published start of the approach is still 10 NM in front of us. I guess the PF still thinks he is on a 'descend via' clearance and starts a descent. I tell him to level off and ask socal if we can descend via the arrival. He 'gets it' and clears us to 7000 ft -- the first crossing restr on the ILS. I also notice that we have slowed to 200 KTS and tell the PF to accelerate back to 250 KTS assigned. Nothing like 50 KTS of closure from the guy behind you. Having fun yet? We finally get a breather at the 4000 ft restr on the ILS and I realize that we have not done the descent checklist. We accomplish it and proceed to an uneventful landing. I have several problems. Firstly; if you don't think the wbound arrs have been a human factors abomination; just wait; they will get worse. Is it off the VOR or the ILS? Why is the narrative form civet different? Boy; this approach plate sure is busy. The civet has 11 crossing restrs for runway 25R and 10 for runway 24L. To quote mcenroe; 'you cannot be serious.' I did not bother to look closely at the paradise and seavu for this report; but generally they are equally absurd. Secondly; giving close-in arrival and/or runway changes raises workload by a factor of 10. Why has ATC done this for the last decade? Are they that clueless? No wonder we are having a large number of unstabilized approachs in lax. Why isn't the company raising hell about ATC negligence? Thirdly; you can tell instantly if it is an old head controller. The new ones are inept. Lastly; what really scares me is this happening to someone and they are not going to get the altimeters set on an approach to minimums and something really bad is going to happen. This buffoonery is not just at socal but is endemic nationally. And it is most prevalent on ground; tower; and TRACON. On this same trip; sea ground and tower treated us like we were beneath them when we wanted to know what the plan was. Oh yeah; runway change and situation in the corner to wait for it. Las ramp; ground; tower jerked us around too. Apparently it is widely believed we can instantaneously make runway; departure; arrival changes. It should be mandatory for controllers to have a minimum of a pilot instrument rating.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT BEMOANS ATC HANDLING OF COMPLEX SEAVU; PARADISE AND CIVET STARS TO LAX.

Narrative: ATC FOLLIES PART...? WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE SEAVU ARR ON ORIGINAL FLT PLAN CLRNC. THIS ARR HAD BEEN PROGRAMMED; REVIEWED; AND CONFIRMED IN THE CDU. COURSE WE BOTH KNEW BETTER AND HAD THE PARADISE; CIVET; AND SEAVU PLATES OUT; AND HAD EVEN DISCUSSED HOW ATC CAN TURN THE DSCNT INSTANTLY INTO A GOAT ROPE. HA! WE ARE READY FOR THEM. NOT! WE WERE THEN GIVEN THE CIVET ARR SO WE PROGRAMMED; REVIEWED; AND CONFIRMED AGAIN. WE HAD SELECTED RWY 25L. FROM THE TOP OF DSCNT WE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE OBLIGATORY S-TURNS AND MULTIPLE SPD CHANGES. WE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN DSND VIA; ONLY GRAMM AT FL190 AND NORMAL SPD 180 KTS (6 MI PER MIN -- STUFF HAPPENING REALLY FAST BTWN GRAMM AND CIVET). 2-3 MI FROM RUSTT WE WERE GIVEN DSND VIA THE CIVET FOR RWY 24R. GREAT -- HERE WE GO. I BEGIN PROGRAMMING THE RWY CHANGE AND GET A RTE DISCONTINUITY ON THE FMC AND I QUICKLY REALIZE THE PF HAS A RTE DISCONTINUITY TOO. I TELL HIM TO TURN 20 DEGS R (DIRECT CIVET) AND CLOSE THE DISCONTINUITY. ATC 'SEES US DRIFTING L OF COURSE.' YEAH; NO (EXPLETIVE); 'EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IN A TURN DIRECT TO CIVET AS REQUIRED. SHE ASKED US IF WE CAN GO DIRECT TO SKOLL AND WE RESPOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. CLRED DIRECT SKOLL; AT 10000 FT; AND A FREQ CHANGE TO THE THIRD SOCAL PERSON. PF RAPIDLY GETTING BEHIND ACFT AND I CAN'T TALK; TUNE; NAV FAST ENOUGH. SOCAL CLRS US FOR THE ILS RWY 24R. WE ARE 35 MI FROM THE FIELD AND THE PUBLISHED START OF THE APCH IS STILL 10 NM IN FRONT OF US. I GUESS THE PF STILL THINKS HE IS ON A 'DSND VIA' CLRNC AND STARTS A DSCNT. I TELL HIM TO LEVEL OFF AND ASK SOCAL IF WE CAN DSND VIA THE ARR. HE 'GETS IT' AND CLRS US TO 7000 FT -- THE FIRST XING RESTR ON THE ILS. I ALSO NOTICE THAT WE HAVE SLOWED TO 200 KTS AND TELL THE PF TO ACCELERATE BACK TO 250 KTS ASSIGNED. NOTHING LIKE 50 KTS OF CLOSURE FROM THE GUY BEHIND YOU. HAVING FUN YET? WE FINALLY GET A BREATHER AT THE 4000 FT RESTR ON THE ILS AND I REALIZE THAT WE HAVE NOT DONE THE DSCNT CHKLIST. WE ACCOMPLISH IT AND PROCEED TO AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. I HAVE SEVERAL PROBS. FIRSTLY; IF YOU DON'T THINK THE WBOUND ARRS HAVE BEEN A HUMAN FACTORS ABOMINATION; JUST WAIT; THEY WILL GET WORSE. IS IT OFF THE VOR OR THE ILS? WHY IS THE NARRATIVE FORM CIVET DIFFERENT? BOY; THIS APCH PLATE SURE IS BUSY. THE CIVET HAS 11 XING RESTRS FOR RWY 25R AND 10 FOR RWY 24L. TO QUOTE MCENROE; 'YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.' I DID NOT BOTHER TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PARADISE AND SEAVU FOR THIS RPT; BUT GENERALLY THEY ARE EQUALLY ABSURD. SECONDLY; GIVING CLOSE-IN ARR AND/OR RWY CHANGES RAISES WORKLOAD BY A FACTOR OF 10. WHY HAS ATC DONE THIS FOR THE LAST DECADE? ARE THEY THAT CLUELESS? NO WONDER WE ARE HAVING A LARGE NUMBER OF UNSTABILIZED APCHS IN LAX. WHY ISN'T THE COMPANY RAISING HELL ABOUT ATC NEGLIGENCE? THIRDLY; YOU CAN TELL INSTANTLY IF IT IS AN OLD HEAD CTLR. THE NEW ONES ARE INEPT. LASTLY; WHAT REALLY SCARES ME IS THIS HAPPENING TO SOMEONE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE ALTIMETERS SET ON AN APCH TO MINIMUMS AND SOMETHING REALLY BAD IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS BUFFOONERY IS NOT JUST AT SOCAL BUT IS ENDEMIC NATIONALLY. AND IT IS MOST PREVALENT ON GND; TWR; AND TRACON. ON THIS SAME TRIP; SEA GND AND TWR TREATED US LIKE WE WERE BENEATH THEM WHEN WE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE PLAN WAS. OH YEAH; RWY CHANGE AND SIT IN THE CORNER TO WAIT FOR IT. LAS RAMP; GND; TWR JERKED US AROUND TOO. APPARENTLY IT IS WIDELY BELIEVED WE CAN INSTANTANEOUSLY MAKE RWY; DEP; ARR CHANGES. IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR CTLRS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF A PLT INST RATING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.