Narrative:

A mix of clearances were issued late in the arrival which caused more than enough confusion for both me and my first officer. Our initial clearance into las was to fly the grnpa one RNAV arrival. Approaching luxor at 12;000 feet/250 knots; we were told to expect a visual approach to 19L. Shortly after acknowledging this clearance we were given direct to trrop and descent to 8000 feet; then further to 7000 feet. Approaching trrop and realizing that we will be high for a visual; my first officer started to slow to 200 knots; as I directed him that he may want to also plan on after trrop going toward ranve on the RNAV(GPS) runway 19L approach to give him room to get down for a stabilized approach and landing. About 2 miles from trrop approach control asked us if we had the runway; and we said we did; expecting to then be cleared for a visual to 19L. What we were told after we called sight of the runway was when the confusion started. We were not just cleared for the visual; but rather we were told that we were to follow the remainder of the gpnpa arrival followed by the RNAV visual to 19L. Sounds semi clear; but the gpnpa arrival does not have a transition to the RNAV 19L; as the arrival ends at lemnz; a point not on the RNAV 19L approach. Further; our last clearance was only to 7000 feet; and we were not sure we could continue our descent or if we had to maintain our altitude until after lemnz since there was a MCA of 6100 feet between trrop and lemnz. To try and clarify the confusion I asked if we are or could be cleared for the visual to 19L and were told; no; fly the remainder of the grnpa arrival then cleared the visual RNAV 19L. Flying toward lemnz now at 7000 feet and thinking without further descent we are quickly approaching a point of calling off the approach to 19L; the controller finally said; cleared visual to 19L; you can maneuver to the right of course so as to be able to descend for landing; contact tower. We called tower; got clearance to land and completed our stabilized approach. After arriving at the gate; I called las approach to get some clarification on the clearances which he gave us. The supervisor who answered the phone listened as I related my concerns over giving such a confusing and contradictory clearance. My concern to him was the clarity of which altitude and or ground track he wanted me to fly. He told me if there was any confusion I should have asked for clarification; which I told him I did ask; but the answer I received was just a repeat of the first clearance I was given to fly the remainder of the grnpa followed by the visual RNAV 19L. It was only when the controller allowed me to widen my turn and clear me for the approach; was there clarity in my and my first officers head. Upon further talking with the supervisor; he informed me that the reason for flying this 'ground track' was to avoid runway 25 final traffic and military airspace to the north. He also said they do hundreds of the visual approached a day at las. I informed them there must be some local knowledge used by those airlines as they fly in and out of here multiple times a day; but unlike them; I do not come to las multiple times a day; week and or year. In fact just the previous week I came in on the same flight and did the same approach to runway 19L; I was cleared for a visual approach to 19L. No additional clearances about flying the remainder of the grnpa; just cleared for the visual. He said they do that sometimes but only if nothing else is going on around the airport. He further told me of how the other local airlines never have a problem with this approach as they are flying the RNAV visual 19L/right approach. He said it was like flying the expressway visual into lga. The other airlines love this approach as it gets them from trrop to a visual final without having to be high as we were finding ourselves. He further informed me that the reason we were given the clearance about flying the remainder of the grnpa arrival is because my airline did not 'sign onto' getting to use this visual approach unlike the other local carriers. From all of this; it appears that what the controller wanted us to do; was to fly the same ground track of the RNAV visual 19R/left approach without actually calling it what is was. This failure to communicate could have been avoided if las approach; knowing that we do not possess charts for the RNAV visual runway 19L/right; give us further vectors after trrop to put us on the RNAV final; or if we can get charts and approval to fly the RNAV visual runway 19L/right.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-800 Captain experiences confusion during the GRNPA 1 RNAV arrival to LAS. When the runway is reported in sight the reporter is cleared to fly the remainder of the GRNPA 1 followed by the RNAV visual to Runway 19L; resulting in a high approach until the clearance is revised to a simple visual.

Narrative: A mix of clearances were issued late in the arrival which caused more than enough confusion for both me and my first officer. Our initial clearance into LAS was to fly the GRNPA ONE RNAV ARRIVAL. Approaching LUXOR at 12;000 feet/250 knots; we were told to expect a visual approach to 19L. Shortly after acknowledging this clearance we were given direct to TRROP and descent to 8000 feet; then further to 7000 feet. Approaching TRROP and realizing that we will be high for a visual; my first officer started to slow to 200 knots; as I directed him that he may want to also plan on after TRROP going toward RANVE on the RNAV(GPS) Runway 19L approach to give him room to get down for a stabilized approach and landing. About 2 miles from TRROP approach control asked us if we had the runway; and we said we did; expecting to then be cleared for a visual to 19L. What we were told after we called sight of the runway was when the confusion started. We were not just cleared for the visual; but rather we were told that we were to follow the remainder of the GPNPA arrival followed by the RNAV visual to 19L. Sounds semi clear; but the GPNPA arrival does not have a transition to the RNAV 19L; as the arrival ends at LEMNZ; a point not on the RNAV 19L approach. Further; our last clearance was only to 7000 feet; and we were not sure we could continue our descent or if we had to maintain our altitude until after LEMNZ since there was a MCA of 6100 feet between TRROP and LEMNZ. To try and clarify the confusion I asked if we are or could be cleared for the visual to 19L and were told; NO; fly the remainder of the GRNPA arrival then cleared the visual RNAV 19L. Flying toward LEMNZ now at 7000 feet and thinking without further descent we are quickly approaching a point of calling off the approach to 19L; the controller finally said; cleared visual to 19L; you can maneuver to the right of course so as to be able to descend for landing; contact tower. We called tower; got clearance to land and completed our stabilized approach. After arriving at the gate; I called LAS Approach to get some clarification on the clearances which he gave us. The Supervisor who answered the phone listened as I related my concerns over giving such a confusing and contradictory clearance. My concern to him was the clarity of which altitude and or ground track he wanted me to fly. He told me if there was any confusion I should have asked for clarification; which I told him I did ask; but the answer I received was just a repeat of the first clearance I was given to fly the remainder of the GRNPA followed by the visual RNAV 19L. It was only when the controller allowed me to widen my turn and clear me for the approach; was there clarity in my and my first officers head. Upon further talking with the Supervisor; he informed me that the reason for flying this 'ground track' was to avoid Runway 25 final traffic and military airspace to the North. He also said they do hundreds of the visual approached a day at LAS. I informed them there must be some local knowledge used by those airlines as they fly in and out of here multiple times a day; but unlike them; I do not come to LAS multiple times a day; week and or year. In fact just the previous week I came in on the same flight and did the same approach to Runway 19L; I was cleared for a visual approach to 19L. No additional clearances about flying the remainder of the GRNPA; just cleared for the visual. He said they do that sometimes but only if nothing else is going on around the airport. He further told me of how the other local airlines never have a problem with this approach as they are flying the RNAV Visual 19L/R approach. He said it was like flying the expressway visual into LGA. The other airlines love this approach as it gets them from TRROP to a visual final without having to be high as we were finding ourselves. He further informed me that the reason we were given the clearance about flying the remainder of the GRNPA arrival is because my airline did not 'sign onto' getting to use this visual approach unlike the other local carriers. From all of this; it appears that what the controller wanted us to do; was to fly the same ground track of the RNAV Visual 19R/L approach without actually calling it what is was. This failure to communicate could have been avoided if LAS Approach; knowing that we do not possess charts for the RNAV Visual Runway 19L/R; give us further vectors after TRROP to put us on the RNAV final; or if we can get charts and approval to fly the RNAV Visual Runway 19L/R.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.