A320
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Situational Awareness; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Human Factors; Procedure
First off; I don't think it is possible to properly brief for multiple runway assignments; especially when there are NOTAMs involved for each runway. Along with being informed late by ATC. Runway 27 was the last runway I would expect while on this arrival. The expected runway via the arrival is 26R. Me underlining the NOTAM for 27 did not help me to remember unfortunately. Switching the runway up is busy enough work in this phase of flight. I'll be more aware of this type of goat rope by ATC as a possibility after this incident. Next up. ATC giving a visual clearance with a crossing restriction over a fix that is only on the ILS 27 and RNAV approach plate. This to me is a very lousy clearance. That being said; I accepted the clearance. So I take some blame. At the same time ATC needs to refrain from giving such clearances. Last minute runway switches can be very troublesome especially when NOTAMs are involved. I'm not sure why the ATIS did not advertise Runway 27 RNAV instead of the visual. Both Runway 26R and 26L were shown on the ATIS as both ILS approaches. Had this been the case (RNAV 27 approach advertised) none of this would have happened. I know I am the last line of defense and I did catch these errors; unfortunately not as quick as I would have liked to. But it would help if the system was better set up to not set the pilots on such course.
A320 Captain reported missing an altitude restriction on arrival into IAH; citing a late runway change as contributing.