A319
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human-Machine Interface; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Las Vegas Approach Control assigned the infamous 'continue on the GRNPA arrival course until intercepting final; cleared visual approach Runway 19R.' I knew better; but accepted the clearance. We requested a turn toward the stratosphere to allow for an intercept point further away from the runway and were roundly rejected. Instead of refusing the clearance and requesting holding; which I have done in the past to prod the Controller to be a bit more cooperative; we continued the approach. I had loaded the RNAV 19R approach into the FMS instead of just the CF fix. That was another mistake on my part; as it created a sequencing nightmare for my First Officer as we joined the final approach course. The runway was never sequenced as the TO waypoint; which caused problems. I got task saturated and did not call for the approach phase activation; and this caused a spool up of the engines; of course; when I tried to manage the airspeed. I overrode the automation and utilized manual thrust for the remainder of the approach and landing. As we were slowing at thrust IDLE in the bumpy air; we got a 'SPEED; SPEED; SPEED' warning approximately 25 KTS prior to reaching Vls; but was already beginning to add power and intercept the final approach course. At this point we were configured; slightly high; with time remaining to correct for a stabilized approach by 500 FT AGL as I recall. Managed speed was not available as we entered the short approach segment; and it was at this time I realized we were not properly sequenced. Remembering the close call one of our crews had during a go-around in a similar situation in Las Vegas last summer; I elected to land with manual thrust; and a selected airspeed. With 9;000 plus FT of dry runway available; the aircraft on the appropriate glide path and at the target airspeed; I felt landing was the safest option available. As I recall the event; we were stable at 500 FT AGL. We landed without further incident. I am hopeful a charted visual approach will be coming our way soon. Short of that; I need to load the CF approach in the FMS to ease the workload on my First Officer as we turn final. Also; if ATC will not allow for a wider margin of error in regard to length of final approach course; I may very well simply request turns in holding until they have time to work us in. This approach is a danger to any stabilized approach as it has very little margin for error. I would like to see this approach assignment go away. I allowed myself to fall behind and paid the price for it. I do not feel that the flight was at risk from a safety standpoint at any time; but I was definitely outside of the normal practices of the airline on this approach and I strive to be better than that.
A319 Captain reports being cleared by LAS Approach to 'continue on the GRNPA arrival course until intercepting final; cleared visual approach Runway 19R.' This results in an unstabilized approach with a Low Energy Warning; but the approach is continued to a landing.