Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 146; Flight Crew Total 14478; Flight Crew Type 3410
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Entering GRU approach airspace began a heavy workload environment. Brazilia center had advised to expect the MOXAP 1A arrival. After checking in with Approach we were approaching our FMC to point and requested lower. Communications were difficult (and continued to be difficult for the remainder of the flight). After descent given to FL180 we were given vectors for spacing east of course. The most current ATIS reported RNAV GNSS 09R U approach in use. We had briefed the 09R ILS and subsequently briefed the 9R U approach using the approach and briefing guide. We were then given descent to FL230. We asked several times as to what speed approach desired with no answer until finally given 230 KTS. Then we were given direct to GR079 and after asking what arrival we were on we were cleared via the MOXAP 1A arrival 09R U VNAV approach and then cleared to descend to FL100- this all resulted in the need to for full speedbrakes for descent to FL100 to get back on VNAV descent profile. ATIS reported an altimeter of 1020 HPA - the approach controller 3 times gave an altimeter of 1012 HPA (each time using different verbiage-ten twelve and one zero one two). We were still at the assigned 230 KTS approaching VUSAG - after several tries were given speed our discretion and then slow to approach speed after passing VUSAG.We configured the aircraft to fly at approach speed (gear down flaps 30).Visibility was good and prior to GR019 on the approach the autopilot was disengaged. We reached GR019 at the 3;300 feet DA at approach speed. At GR019 the flight directors commanded a right turn and climb according to the missed approach procedure. We had visual with the runway and continued to landing.Observations-1-We had assumed that there is FMC guidance (vertical and lateral to the runway- not so.2-At the DA at GR019 (MAP) I felt the aircraft is actually high for a standard approach path to the runway.3- When analyzing the notes regarding the 'segregated' approach I find the dual missed approach procedures confusing and contradictory. This is a poorly laid out approach that has no benefit. Instead of simply being assigned a visual approach; a small note leads to vague descriptions about the segregated approach putting all traffic separation and wake turbulence avoidance to the flight crew. The 09R ground track is identical to the ILS Z09R. This approach should not be used to the ceiling and visual minimums published as upon break out a crew would need to immediately begin a no instrument guidance visual while a little high. Also; does the 3.00 degree descent between GR036 and GR019 lead to a proper glide path to the runway?4- This approach should be used in training.
Air Carrier Captain reported SBGR approach chart is confusing; possibly inaccurate; and causes high workload.