Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 155; Flight Crew Total 6500; Flight Crew Type 4000
Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Human Factors; Procedure
Denver airport is becoming hazardous to fly into due to non-specific ATIS; poor communication between DEN Center and DEN Approach; and the normalization of multiple arrivals and approaches being programmed during a normal arrival into Denver. This has increased substantially in the last few months and is resulting in aircrews being nearly continuously heads down reprogramming and briefing arrivals/transitions; approaches; taxi plan; getting appropriate landing data; briefing such changes; reviewing NOTAMs associated with these changes...etc. This is usually done while dodging weather; and mitigating turbulence; while descending into high terrain and congested traffic into an airport with multiple; parallel; similarly named runways. I feel there are three root causes. 1) ATIS is not very useful. Basically; a direction of traffic flow and a listing of all available approaches DEN has. 2) There seems to be a system now where approach tells Center what runway transition to assign aircraft. This transition frequently doesn't make sense and was not anticipated; programmed and briefed. Then; upon handoff to approach; the transition to another runway is often assigned. Then when the actual runway and approach is assigned; it frequently results in another reprogramming. This is acceptable during rapidly changing weather...it is commonplace all the time; however. On Aircraft X we programmed and briefed the FLATI 2 RNAV; RWY26 transition; RNAV Z Runway 26 approach. (Winds were 25024G34.) After starting the descent; we were given direct BYYKE; for the LONGS RNAV arrival. We programmed the LONGS arrival; Runway 26 transition; Runway 26 RNAV Z approach. We told Center that we were requesting Runway 26. Center directed us to fly the Runway 16R transition. (even though we were planning not to accept this approach). They said they are directed by DEN approach what transition to assign). We reprogrammed the ILS R16 transition and approach (we are now well along in the descent...moderate turbulence; and a VNAV discontinuity resulting from the reprogramming not being executable because of an approach transition altitude in-congruence) This was resolved quickly and safely and flown uneventfully with a 25 knot crosswind landing. The forecast approach winds were spot on; the ATIS hadn't changed substantially in an hour (Though there were about 5 or 6 of them). The point is; there was no significant change in weather driving this. I could have written the same report the last time I arrived to DEN on my last [arrival] from the east. On the flight today; we planned and briefed two different arrivals; one of the arrivals changing the transitions twice; two different RNAV Z approaches; an ILS approach and two different runways/performance numbers; NOTAMs; engine failure procedures taxi plans etc. I wouldn't spend time filing this report if it was a 'one off' It is becoming the norm and accepted scenario into Denver. It is also a contributing factor with DEN historically having issues with RNAVs. Each of these arrivals is complicated with at least 5-10 different altitude or speed constraints associated with them.
Air carrier Captain reported confusion and distractions when flying into Denver.