Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Human Factors; Procedure
We requested direct VIKES for the ILS DME 34L approach and we were given a clearance of Direct VIKES Direct; descend and maintain 10000 feet. About 10 miles from VIKES (we were approaching from the Northeast) VFR traffic popped up about 5 miles southwest of VIKES; climbing to 10500; east bound. ATC told us to level at 12000 feet for traffic. The cloud layer was scattered to broken with bases at around 9300 feet. We leveled at 12000 feet and made a right turn at VIKES; following the transition route. ATC then seemed confused and asked if we were turning toward the airport and before my FO could respond; ATC gave us a left turn vector HDG 160 and a descent to 9100 feet. We were now within a mile of the final approach course flying south; too close to make a right turn back to final. So ATC said turn left heading 140; I need to widen you out for the approach. We turned to HDG 140 and now we were clearly below all the clouds and could see all the terrain. He then told us to turn to HDG 010 which would have turned us directly into the higher terrain. I got on the radio and declined his clearance with 'Unable; we have the airport in sight'. He then said something about giving us a different altitude; and seemed confused. I responded with 'Airport in sight'. At that point he cleared us for the visual. My FO was concerned about the terrain to the right; so we slowed and put flaps to 5 degrees. During the turn back to final; I saw the airspeed slow to 154 kts at which point I sped up to 185kts. We completed the turn and intercepted the localizer from the east side and tracked it in to the airport.[Caused by] unclear or Poor ATC instructions; VFR aircraft; ATC expectations vs Pilot expectations different.
Approach quickly gave us a new heading taking us away from the traffic but towards terrain. The PF said that they did not want to turn to that heading and that direction because the PF could clearly see terrain that would be a factor. The PF requested a turn to the right. I mentioned that I didn't think turning to an assigned heading to the right was a good idea because I could see terrain that was higher than our altitude to the right. Turning to the left we had plenty of lateral separation from most of the terrain; but the vertical separation was minimal over one particular mountain. Turning to the right we had more lateral separation but would need to make a continuous turn to a localizer intercept heading due to the rising terrain. The PF made a radio transmission to approach requesting a turn to the right due to terrain on the left. Approach didn't understand exactly what the request was and started a few transmissions back and forth with the PF while we were approaching terrain. The PF then decided to relieve the approach controller of terrain separation responsibilities and called the airport in sight.
Air carrier flight crew reported they were uncomfortable with ATC issued headings relative to their proximity to terrain on approach to RNO.