B737-700
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 198
Other / Unknown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
I was the pilot flying on the GEELA Arrival. We were previously cleared for descent via to 7R transition. At some point the runway was changed. We were sent to a new Controller and were asked if we had the new ATIS code. The pilot not flying said we had; even though we had not. This new ATIS included a runway change and the Controller then cleared us for the 25 arrival. Had we fessed up to not having the ATIS; the communication might have gone smoother. In any event; I noticed we now had the wrong transition in the box and had just a few miles to fix it. What made things more complex now was the fact that we were passing GEELA on the right ground track to 25; but now well below the next fix MNSTR; which is a 15;000-16;000 FT restriction. This became obvious when the jet wouldn't take VNAV due to us being below the restriction. We got on the radio quickly and got the restriction changed to MNSTR at 11;000 FT. No altitude deviation; but it took some luck and quick radios to fix it in time. The rest of the arrival was uneventful. We did not help matters by agreeing to an ATIS code we did not have. Perhaps the new clearance for us may have gone a bit smoother if the Controller had that info. I would like to focus on a larger point. That is; any time there is a new runway given; I would like to see the Controllers give us a heading and altitude to get us on our way first. This would allow us to make our FMC changes and not bust an altitude or go in a bad direction as we try to quickly get the box right. At this point both; pilots are heads down and pretty focused on the box and the points. Any typing error here due to rushing this process can be bad news. Instead; a clearance like 'you are now cleared to Runway 25 via 090 heading and 11 thousand. Advise when you are direct MNSTR and ready to resume the Runway 25R transition.' I am not locked into this phrase exactly; but I think a heading and altitude and some feedback from the pilots gives us time to make sure the box is right and will eliminate other radio calls due to typing or altitude errors. Had we not been able to get our request on the radio in time; we would have crossed MNSTR well below the charted altitude. This same scenario plays out multiple times a day on the LAX arrivals. Some Controllers do a great job and give you a heading to the localizer and an altitude. That is easy to do as you are flipping charts and trying to get the box right. Others ask you to get on the new transition to a new point which may be just a couple of miles on your nose. The last minute change is all on the pilot to get it right. I think that is a mistake. This type of change should first be given a simple clearance and then a descent via or any other complex clearance; once we have our act together. My hope here is ATC will see how dynamic these situations are; and come up with a standard way of handling them for the benefit of everybody.
While descending via the approach for 7R; ATC told us to descend via approach for 25L just prior to the branch point. We scrambled to update the FMC and realized we were already below the proper altitude for the 25L transition. We asked Approach what altitude they wanted us at. They assigned us a hard altitude of 10;000 FT. They left us hanging while we clarified assigned altitude. We felt that [ATC] should have clarified assigned altitude when changing runway and given us a heading to fly when changing runway just prior to branch point.
B737-700 flight crew reports being assigned a runway change from 7R to 25L approaching GEELA on the GEELA6 arrival to PHX. This results in quick changes to the FMC to stay on track but being below the MNSTR crossing restriction with no altitude assignment from ATC.