Narrative:

During cruise; I got the ATIS and with this we expected the visual approach into gjt. The weather reported was 600 ft broken; 10 miles visibility and winds were favoring runway 29. The captain briefed the visual approach to be backed up with the RNAV for runway 29. During the descent we were told to expect the lda DME 29. We requested the RNAV 29 at this point and we were told to stand by. We set up the instruments and the captain briefed the lda DME 29. We reported the field in sight when we were at 10;000 ft and approximately 5 miles northeast of the airport. We were told we were #3 for landing. We received an approximate 180 degree heading from ATC. We then received a vector to the southeast and we were cleared for the RNAV (GPS) 29 and cleared direct to cesba. At this point we were not set up for the RNAV (GPS) 29 approach any more. We hurried and got set up and were unsure if it was cesba that we were cleared direct to; so I asked for clarification and the controller said cleared direct cesba. We then asked for a vector toward cesba which he gave us and the controller asked if we were GPS equipped and then asked if we had the terrain; which we did not -- we were IMC. We did not have any GPWS warnings during this flight. We were planning on using the RNAV 29 as a back-up only for the visual approach because of the ATIS report so the captain did not fully brief the RNAV 29 and this is why there was confusion with the fix cesba. Once we had the approach set up in the FMS; the captain had me tell the controller we could go direct hansu. The controller then gave us a vector and told us to cancel the approach and climb. The controller then cleared us for the lda DME 29 approach and we landed without further incident. There were a few factors that led to some confusion. First we were expecting a visual approach. Second; we were not given enough time when we received the RNAV approach to properly set it up and brief it. And finally; bad weather in the mountains caused other aircraft to divert to gjt so there were a lot of aircraft in the gjt area. I believe we should have been informed earlier that we would be able to use the RNAV 29 approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier on descent into GJT experienced confusion when ATC made multiple changes regarding expected approach procedures.

Narrative: During cruise; I got the ATIS and with this we expected the visual approach into GJT. The weather reported was 600 FT broken; 10 miles visibility and winds were favoring Runway 29. The Captain briefed the visual approach to be backed up with the RNAV for Runway 29. During the descent we were told to expect the LDA DME 29. We requested the RNAV 29 at this point and we were told to stand by. We set up the instruments and the Captain briefed the LDA DME 29. We reported the field in sight when we were at 10;000 FT and approximately 5 miles northeast of the airport. We were told we were #3 for landing. We received an approximate 180 degree heading from ATC. We then received a vector to the southeast and we were cleared for the RNAV (GPS) 29 and cleared direct to CESBA. At this point we were not set up for the RNAV (GPS) 29 approach any more. We hurried and got set up and were unsure if it was CESBA that we were cleared direct to; so I asked for clarification and the Controller said cleared direct CESBA. We then asked for a vector toward CESBA which he gave us and the Controller asked if we were GPS equipped and then asked if we had the terrain; which we did not -- we were IMC. We did not have any GPWS warnings during this flight. We were planning on using the RNAV 29 as a back-up only for the visual approach because of the ATIS report so the Captain did not fully brief the RNAV 29 and this is why there was confusion with the fix CESBA. Once we had the approach set up in the FMS; the Captain had me tell the Controller we could go direct HANSU. The Controller then gave us a vector and told us to cancel the approach and climb. The Controller then cleared us for the LDA DME 29 approach and we landed without further incident. There were a few factors that led to some confusion. First we were expecting a visual approach. Second; we were not given enough time when we received the RNAV approach to properly set it up and brief it. And finally; bad weather in the mountains caused other aircraft to divert to GJT so there were a lot of aircraft in the GJT area. I believe we should have been informed earlier that we would be able to use the RNAV 29 approach.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.