Narrative:

While on a flight to chs the crew was issued a confusing clearance. While in flight ATC issued the ospri one arrival to chs; which is a RNAV arrival. The notes on the arrival indicate the crew should listen to ATIS to determine the runway assignment. This is required because the routing splits at ospri intersection into two [three] possible routes depending on the landing runway. Chs is not a digital ATIS airport; so the only way to determine the landing runway is via the radio broadcast. When the clearance was issued (approximately 300 miles north of chs) it was impossible to hear the ATIS broadcast. When the crew queried ATC they were unable to answer which direction we should fly. Also; when we finally were able to hear the chs; the ATIS was advertising landings on runway 3 and runway 33. Again; the ospri one splits at the ospri interception depending on the runway assignment. The center controllers were unable to tell us which way to go; so we just told them we were set up for runway 33. There is a second note regarding chs approach. It says to expect runway assignment from chs approach. By the time the crew was talking to chs approach; we were either very close to ospri or beyond ospri. In either case; navigation deviations could occur if ATC and flight crews are not on the same page. In this case; the crew checked in requesting runway 3 and chs approach assigned this runway. Problems could arise if flight crews do not realize the routing entered is runway dependent and ATC expects a different routing. Even when flight crew captures the potential error; ATC could have a plan for the opposite runway. Given the close location the clearance will be give to ospri; time pressure could cause errors in FMS entry. In this case; there were no navigation deviations. However; this could be a potential problem in the future. When these types of clearances are issued; they should include the landing runway assignment. Digital ATIS would allow proper time to setup the correct arrival. Also; while it may be operationally advantageous to broadcast two possible landing runways; it leads to confusion as to which runway to pick for the arrival. It may be better to only advertise one landing runway in the ATIS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE560 Captain was assigned the OSPRI 1 arrival to CHS but was unable to learn the landing runway from ATC or from ATIS; which is necessary to determine the route after OSPRI. When the voice only ATIS is finally heard; two possible runways are given.

Narrative: While on a flight to CHS the crew was issued a confusing clearance. While in flight ATC issued the OSPRI ONE arrival to CHS; which is a RNAV arrival. The notes on the arrival indicate the crew should listen to ATIS to determine the runway assignment. This is required because the routing splits at OSPRI intersection into two [three] possible routes depending on the landing runway. CHS is not a digital ATIS airport; so the only way to determine the landing runway is via the radio broadcast. When the clearance was issued (approximately 300 miles north of CHS) it was impossible to hear the ATIS broadcast. When the crew queried ATC they were unable to answer which direction we should fly. Also; when we finally were able to hear the CHS; the ATIS was advertising landings on Runway 3 and Runway 33. Again; the OSPRI ONE splits at the OSPRI interception depending on the runway assignment. The center controllers were unable to tell us which way to go; so we just told them we were set up for Runway 33. There is a second note regarding CHS approach. It says to expect runway assignment from CHS approach. By the time the crew was talking to CHS Approach; we were either very close to OSPRI or beyond OSPRI. In either case; navigation deviations could occur if ATC and flight crews are not on the same page. In this case; the crew checked in requesting Runway 3 and CHS approach assigned this runway. Problems could arise if flight crews do not realize the routing entered is runway dependent and ATC expects a different routing. Even when flight crew captures the potential error; ATC could have a plan for the opposite runway. Given the close location the clearance will be give to OSPRI; time pressure could cause errors in FMS entry. In this case; there were no navigation deviations. However; this could be a potential problem in the future. When these types of clearances are issued; they should include the landing runway assignment. Digital ATIS would allow proper time to setup the correct arrival. Also; while it may be operationally advantageous to broadcast two possible landing runways; it leads to confusion as to which runway to pick for the arrival. It may be better to only advertise one landing runway in the ATIS.

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.