Narrative:

This is to report of a possible deviation on an arrival (STAR) into narita; japan (nrt). If there was a deviation; I was not informed of it by ATC. We corrected the navigation as best and as quickly as we could; but there are some problems with the newly implemented arrival procedures for this airport. I'll begin by pointing out that in all of the 17 pages of the NOTAM package; there is only one paragraph that directs pilots to use caution with new arrival and departure procedures that became effective on or about october xa; 2011. I received some cabin attendant (japan) SID departure routings; as well as some arrival routings from the company operations representative prior to flying to our destination the previous evening. We noted that in our commercial approach charts; there were also these same charts. We were cleared the march arrival; for runway 16L. The commercial march arrival approach 'plate' went into effect on october xb; and the cabin attendant approach plate went into effect on october xa. The arrival is the same; but the presentation is substantially different; which I will further explain near the end of this report. This caused some distraction; and while at cruise; we discussed which page would be best to use. I strongly believe that this is an unnecessary distraction. What is most significant is that in the past; approach control assigns a series of vectors; and then a final vector to the localizer course. Their new procedure shows the pixus arrival; and the march arrival on the same page; with a course line that goes from march intersection; but is not continuous; because they have the printing of the word 'march' and the geographical coordinates written exactly where the line would normally be presented. Then; some distance below this printing; you can see the course line that goes to runway 16L. ATC cleared us to 'maintain 3;000 ft; cleared for runway 16L approach;' but since we were still approaching march intersection; I did not perceive that ATC was issuing me an approach clearance. I assumed he was only reconfirming we were going to fly our approach to runway 16L; and I only read back to him 'maintain 3;000 ft; runway.' I believe this is when we 'extended' birdy; the FAF; but we were still in LNAV; since we were not on a vector. At about one mile prior to march; we realized our error; and then reinstalled the march arrival; and the runway 16L approach; however we no longer had the complete course line; which had been previously displayed; so we elected to steer in heading select an approximation of what we assumed would be provided by the RNAV approach; and subsequently intercepted the localizer; and flew our approach and landing without further event. I do not believe the procedure of a representative of our operations office handing us these charts the day prior (on the previous evening) is an effective flight planning process. Furthermore; we are not provided with any guidance on which approach plate to use; the japanese cabin attendant charts; or the commercial charts. On the commercial charts; there are seven large boxes; with good detail provided for each of the holding fixes. These boxes are good; but they should at least be organized on the left or right margin of the chart; or publish a separate chart. There are also five small boxes that are used only to give details of the navigation aid; i.e.; sekiyado; 117.0; sye; morse code identifier; latitude; longitude; and elevation. The commercial chart has much less 'clutter.' lastly; nowhere is there any text that explains that the approach will be done completely in LNAV; and there will be no vectors provided by ATC. This is completely different than previous procedures with narita approach control.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Air Carrier Captain comments that the new RJAA March Arrival commercial chart is very confusing and because the Japanese CAB chart went into effect the following day the crew was unclear about which procedure to follow.

Narrative: This is to report of a possible deviation on an arrival (STAR) into Narita; Japan (NRT). If there was a deviation; I was not informed of it by ATC. We corrected the navigation as best and as quickly as we could; but there are some problems with the newly implemented arrival procedures for this airport. I'll begin by pointing out that in all of the 17 pages of the NOTAM package; there is only one paragraph that directs pilots to use caution with new arrival and departure procedures that became effective on or about October XA; 2011. I received some CAB (Japan) SID departure routings; as well as some arrival routings from the Company Operations Representative prior to flying to our destination the previous evening. We noted that in our Commercial approach charts; there were also these same charts. We were cleared the March arrival; for Runway 16L. The Commercial March arrival approach 'plate' went into effect on October XB; and the CAB approach plate went into effect on October XA. The arrival is the same; but the presentation is substantially different; which I will further explain near the end of this report. This caused some distraction; and while at cruise; we discussed which page would be best to use. I strongly believe that this is an unnecessary distraction. What is most significant is that in the past; Approach Control assigns a series of vectors; and then a final vector to the localizer course. Their new procedure shows the Pixus Arrival; and the March Arrival on the same page; with a course line that goes from March intersection; but is not continuous; because they have the printing of the word 'March' and the geographical coordinates written exactly where the line would normally be presented. Then; some distance below this printing; you can see the course line that goes to Runway 16L. ATC cleared us to 'maintain 3;000 FT; cleared for Runway 16L approach;' but since we were still approaching March intersection; I did not perceive that ATC was issuing me an approach clearance. I assumed he was only reconfirming we were going to fly our approach to Runway 16L; and I only read back to him 'Maintain 3;000 FT; runway.' I believe this is when we 'extended' BIRDY; the FAF; but we were still in LNAV; since we were not on a vector. At about one mile prior to MARCH; we realized our error; and then reinstalled the MARCH arrival; and the Runway 16L approach; however we no longer had the complete course line; which had been previously displayed; so we elected to steer in heading select an approximation of what we assumed would be provided by the RNAV approach; and subsequently intercepted the localizer; and flew our approach and landing without further event. I do not believe the procedure of a representative of our operations office handing us these charts the day prior (on the previous evening) is an effective flight planning process. Furthermore; we are not provided with any guidance on which approach plate to use; the Japanese CAB charts; or the Commercial charts. On the Commercial charts; there are seven large boxes; with good detail provided for each of the holding fixes. These boxes are good; but they should at least be organized on the left or right margin of the chart; or publish a separate chart. There are also five small boxes that are used only to give details of the navigation aid; i.e.; Sekiyado; 117.0; SYE; Morse code identifier; latitude; longitude; and elevation. The Commercial chart has much less 'clutter.' Lastly; nowhere is there any text that explains that the approach will be done completely in LNAV; and there will be no vectors provided by ATC. This is completely different than previous procedures with Narita Approach Control.

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.