Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Chart Or Publication
We were coming into Morelia. It was night VMC and we carefully set up and briefed the VOR2 to Runway 5. We reviewed it over and over all the way there and were very prepared. We chose the VOR2 approach because the one other time I flew to Mexico they always have us do the approach with the arc; and the VOR2 approach was the one with the arc. Also; we made our best guess as to which approach we would use because there is no way to get the weather there. We sent an ACARS to our Dispatcher and never received an answer. At about 10 miles out; the Approach Controller gave us the VOR1 approach to Runway 5.  We told him we were all set up for the VOR2 approach and we wanted to do that one. He told us there was no VOR2 approach to Runway 5. We have it in our JEPPS and told him we had the plate and we were going to do that approach.  I explained to him that it was too late to change everything. He kept insisting that there was no VOR2 approach to Runway 5; but I was looking at it. We had gone over it numerous times in cruise and we both knew we were OK on all the altitudes and we both felt the safest thing to do was to proceed with what we planned. We are both unfamiliar; it was night in mountainous terrain; and that is not the time to have a head down making changes in the MCDU.  As soon as we made the turn on a left downwind to head towards the Initial Approach Fix; we got the runway in sight and asked for a visual; and were given a visual. Not only do we have an approach that the approach control/tower doesn't have; the names on the plate compared to the MCDU don't match. We reviewed all of them and they all check out DME wise and match the approach plate; but the names (which are letters and numbers) did not match. This is a huge safety concern. If it were IMC it could have ended a lot worse. The only thing that could have helped was to ask approach what runway they were using farther out so we had time to make changes; but I'm not sure they would have been able to tell us.
While [enroute] to MMMM (Morelia; Mexico); we briefed and prepared for the VOR DME 2 approach to Runway 5. We were advised by Mexico Center to contact Morelia Approach and to descend and maintain 11;000 feet. Morelia Approach asked us to report 25 nm DME from the airport. At 10 nm DME; Morelia Approach cleared us for the VOR DME 1 to Runway 5. Because of high terrain on all quadrants; night time; unfamiliarity with the terrain/environment; low to the ground condition; we decided to ask the Controller to keep us on the VOR DME 2 instead. The Controller claimed to not have such an approach available for that airport. We told him we had all the information we needed to safely execute the approach in our FMS database. We sighted the runway and asked for a visual approach. We were granted clearance for the visual approach and flew the profile corresponding to the VOR DME 2 approach which we were all set up for. The landing went on uneventfully.In the future; I'll make sure to ask the Controller as soon as able for the approach in use (there was no ATIS at this airport) so that we can set up for the right approach and thus avoid last minute changes which could be fatal specially at unfamiliar/high terrain airports.
Air carrier flight crew on approach into Morelia; Mexico reported ATC stated there was no VOR 2 Approach to Runway 5 even though the flight crew had the Jeppesen chart for the approach.