B737-800
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Procedure; Human Factors
It was the 2nd leg of a 3-leg day on the 3rd day of a sequence. The ceiling and visibility were unrestricted. The traffic was light in the terminal area. The flight to DEN was uneventful. We planned our STAR and approach. The ATIS for DEN was winds from the north at 9 knots and landing 17R; if my memory is correct it said ILS 17R. There was no mention of any other approaches being offered. On the STAR; ATC kept us somewhat high and kept wanting us to slow. Nothing that was insurmountable. One of the last fixes on the STAR is QWIKE. We were 10 miles from QWIKE and below 10000 AGL; ATC cleared us for the RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R. We were trying to continue to slow to 210 knots. As the Pilot Monitoring (PM); I went heads down to load the approach and as I loaded it I saw the arc show up as it is expected to on the navigation display. Now we were about 5 miles from QWIKE. We were both trying to play catch up on reviewing the approach and briefing what we expect on the approach. We failed to review the legs of the approach in the FMC. We did not notice the discontinuity at QWIKE. As we crossed QWIKE; we noticed the jet did not start the left hand turn on the RNAV RNP. The Pilot Flying (PF) tried to correct the turn; and at that time ATC broke us off the approach and cleared us for the visual 17R. The visual approach and landing were uneventful. ATC issued a late approach clearance for an RNAV RNP. We spent time ensuring we were legal to fly the RNP approach. We failed to see the discontinuity. If we had time to review the legs on the approach we would have noticed the discontinuity. Recommendations: put the appropriate approach and RWY on the ATIS. As soon as a flight checks in with approach; they should give them the expected approach. As pilots; we need to reinforce that if we don't have time to review an approach; take extended vectors and ensure both pilots are in the green.
We were descending into DEN Via the JAGGR3 RNAV with QWIKE at 210kts and at 11000 ft MSL (approximately 6000 ft (AGL). The ATIS had multiple approaches listed to possibly expect; making setting the approach up impossible. First Officer (FO); the Pilot Monitoring (PM); even queried DEN Center if they had any idea what approach we could expect; and they did not. Given the VMC conditions; we expected vectors off the STAR to the ILS RWY 17R. The ATIS did say RNAV approaches could also be assigned; but given the conditions; and my having not flown into DEN in over ten years; I expected vectors to the ILS; not an RNAV (RNP) with an RF leg given the weather. We had been cleared direct to CLPTN and told to keep our speed at 270 kts until told otherwise. At some point we were slowed. As I recall; it was just prior to OPREE; which is 6000 to 7000 feet AGL; that we were switched to approach. When we checked in the controller informed us that we were cleared for the RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R. I was surprised that they were using that type of approach. Although not required on a visual RNP approach; normally a RAIM (receiver autonomous integrity monitoring) prediction is required. I made the comment to the FO that I need to make sure we were even legal for an RNP approach having not had a RAIM. RAIMs are not required in VMC. I called up the plate on my iPad. This approach has several items that need to be procedurally checked; it has an RF leg; the RNP requirement; the RF leg speed and points; VOR updating needs to be turned off on page 2 of the NAV STATUS page on the FMC. A lot of heads down time to prep for that approach. As I looked that up; the approach was loaded into the box. All the time quickly approaching QWIKE which is the IAF of the approach. Trying to get down; set the approach up; check for the legalities and all below 10;000 ft AGL. It was very busy to say the least; and we both missed the route discontinuity in the box from QWIKE to STAAM. As we hit STAAM; we noticed the plane continuing straight ahead and not on the RF leg. I tried to heading select us around to the leg without success. It was at this time the controller asked us if we were descending on the approach and then told us we were a mile north. [The] controller then canceled our approach clearance; gave us a vector; [and] then cleared us for the ILS approach. At no time was there a TCAS alert of any kind nor did we come close to any other aircraft. We landed uneventfully; and were told to call TRACON; which I did. I talked to a supervisor. We discussed the event and some things that could have been done different. On our part; verifying the box is correct is paramount. I should have declined the approach and requested the ILS. It would help crew if more lead time were given if RNAV (RNP) approach specifically is going to [be] assigned; so that all the proper steps on our part can be accomplished. More specificity on the ATIS to which approach is being used could allow proper preparation by the pilots. [ATC Supervisor] said they have been told it is easier for pilots to switch from an ILS approach to a RNAV RNP approach procedurally. I told him that is incorrect; and it is not the type of approach that should be given last minute. An ILS can be given easily last minute on a VMC day by a vector; a frequency and a quick glance at the plate minimums. Feeling rushed and crammed to get this approach loaded in the box; having to check all the RF points; RNP values; loaded us up to where we went from the green and into the red comfort zone wise very quickly. Again; I should have declined the approach and requested the ILS. I think there are lots of great learning points for everyone in this event to prevent this from happening again. I know I am reviewing my methodology for future events similar to this. Bottom line; there are a lot of steps involved in setting up this approach. We missed the route discontinuity; thereby 'slipping through one of the holes in the safety cheese.' We learned an old lesson again; check and recheck; and go around if need be. ATC supervisor asked for my name and phone number which I provided. Cause: rush to comply to a short notice procedurally involved approach; and failure to verify FMC was correct. On our part; verifying the box is correct is paramount. I should have declined the approach and requested the ILS. It would help crew if more lead time were given if RNAV (RNP) approach specifically is going to [be] assigned; so that all the proper steps on our part can be accomplished. More specificity on the ATIS to which approach is being used could allow proper preparation by the pilots.
B737-800 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV (RNP) Z arrival to 17R at DEN. Reporters stated a late clearance change contributed to the event.