Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals
I have run into an issue on [some B757s] when inputting an RNAV STAR on the route page during FMC flight plan loading. If the Flight Manual FMC procedures are not followed exactly when loading the arrival you get something on the route page that looks like the arrival but is not; and it leaves out the end of the arrival. The RNAV arrivals that I've seen this happen on are the GIBBZ arrival into IAD and STARs into my domicile airport.  I'm sure it is happening on others. The way most pilots load an arrival is: Arrival; Transition; and then runway; if you do that you get something like this: MGW Approach transition GIBBZ. If you load: Landing runway; Arrival; Transition you get this: MGW.GIBBZ2 MIKEJ or MATTC (depending on runway) which is correct. If you do it the former way the approach ends at GIBBZ which is wrong; the arrival makes a turn north or south depending on which runway you're landing on. I know I'm not the only one who has made this mistake as I have seen almost every First Officer make the same error. I'm sure you are seeing reports with this issue. I'm bringing this up because I think we need to get something out to the pilots about this and how it can rather insidiously look like the FMC is programmed correctly when it is not.
The reporter stated that for many years he and his fellow crewmembers routinely and successfully programmed STARs in the manner he described; loading the arrival first; any appropriate enroute transition and; finally; the planned landing runway--more or less in the order you planned to 'fly' the programming.  He was surprised to learn that SOP had been changed to require the runway to be loaded first.He now believes the SOP requiring the landing runway to be programmed first in the arrival sequence came about as a result of the newer; more complex RNAV STARs which frequently include what might be termed 'runway transitions' which provide tracks from the end of the common portion of the arrival to a fix from which vectors to the associated IAP are provided; i.e. a transition to the north of the airport to land to the south and vice versa.His experience is that when the runway/approach is programmed last that only waypoints/tracks which are part of the selected IAP are provided and not the 'runway transitions' shown only on the STAR chart.He advised he had not yet experienced a runway change occurring in the midst of flying an RNAV STAR; only when completing programming of his anticipated arrival routing while still at the gate prior to departure. In response to several requests his company eventually released a bulletin stressing the necessity of following the revised SOP.
A B757 Captain reported he had failed to recognize a change in SOP requiring the landing runway to be selected prior to selection of an RNAV STAR and any associated enroute transition.  Prior to becoming aware of the change he was experiencing difficulties programming STARs that included 'transitions' from the end of the STAR's common portion to the waypoint from which vectors are to be provided for the associated IAP.