A321
Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Company Policy; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
3rd day of flying. 3rd flight of day. We had set up for the ILS Approach in accordance with ATIS. No mention was made of Visual Approaches being in use. Despite that fact; we briefed the restrictions over a satellite airport as a precaution.We were taken off the RNAV Arrival and were given a series of step down clearances as we approached the field. Simultaneously; we were told to expect the RNAV Visual Approach. The Pilot Monitoring loaded the new approach as we were below 10;000 ft. which I as the Pilot Flying rapidly briefed. Shortly thereafter; we were cleared to a point not on the arrival nor the RNAV Visual. As the Pilot Monitoring began searching for the fix; I maintained a 3:1 descent rate via VSpeed/Open Des. I was also approaching the point where I was going to need to configure if I wished to have a stabilized approach. The Pilot Monitoring found the fix on the RNAV (GPS) Approach and raced to reconfigure the FMS. Then; having given no prior warning; the Approach Controller cleared us for the ILS Approach which would have been impossible at this point. Having the runway in sight and fearing that any further 'assistance' from the controller would do little to aid my rapidly deteriorating situational awareness; I elected to disconnect the autopilot; and fly the approach visually. I pulled my Pilot Monitoring back into the loop by asking for him to clear my flight directors; configure the aircraft; and ask approach for the Visual Approach. The controller cleared us for the Visual Approach; 'as long as we fly the glideslope down'; which I'd submit is not a legal clearance; but was in any case irrelevant as following the glideslope had always been our intention. After doing some fishing to configure the aircraft and get down onto glideslope; the Pilot Monitoring reselected the approach and flight directors and we flew a stabilized approach to landing. In debriefing this event; we discovered that the fix was also present on the ILS Approach; which was the approach that ATIS had specified; the approach that we had initially briefed; and presumably the approach that the controller wished us to fly all along. I can't say what the Approach controller was thinking during this event. However; on an approach as infamous as any to I can only suggest that last minute changes are inappropriate and unsafe. I also think that the controller has an inaccurate impression of what is required of aircrews when changing approaches. I would suggest that the reality of flying this approach be made clear to her as controlling that is this cavalier will only lead to further unstabilized approaches in the future; or worse. The last minute change to the RNAV Visual followed by clearing us to a point not on the approach; followed by a second clearance for the ILS risked completely overwhelming the aircrew. That this was on a runway that is notorious for unstabilized approaches only exacerbated matters. Frankly; any acceptance of other than ILS approaches to this runway should be disallowed. Flying Visual Approaches to this runway; with it's unique peculiarities is a procedure designed by ATC; for the benefit of ATC. By definition and data; flying this Visual Approach is a compromise of safety for the sake of expediency; and sets aircrew up to be 'the last line of defense'; with generally predictable results.
Air Carrier pilot reported last minute route clearances and unnecessary Approach changes by ATC caused an unsafe workload and unstable approach.