B737 captain reported the tendency of denver approach controllers to push pilots to accept late RNAV...

Narrative:

Checked in and told to expect runway 16R. It was VMC so we expected a visual approach backed up by the ILS as briefed. On downwind at 11000 we were informed by ATC that if we accepted the RNAV arrival our ground path would be shorter. We demurred; and had to explain that we did not want the RNAV. Flew visual approach after reporting field in sight to uneventful landing. Report submitted to highlight issue of push from ATC to get late RNAV clearance. I have had this happen multiple times in den ATC airspace. Have actually called local ATC rep to discuss how much time is involved in briefing an RNAV approach properly prior to flying it. It appears that den ATC still has controllers that are either unaware or do not understand the threat for a poorly briefed/flown RNAV approach. We even have a pilot bulletin on the issue in denver of all places that speaks to the profile being flown with autopilot to ensure separation is not lost.pilots tend to ask for direct and shortcuts out of habit/culture; and ATC is accommodating. If we want to avoid issues we must ensure understanding on the part of ATC of pilot requirements. It can be hard when there are multiple airlines with different procedures; and some who seem to always be able to accept what ATC provides.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reported the tendency of Denver Approach controllers to push pilots to accept late RNAV approach clearances.

Narrative: Checked in and told to expect RWY 16R. It was VMC so we expected a visual approach backed up by the ILS as briefed. On downwind at 11000 we were informed by ATC that if we accepted the RNAV Arrival our ground path would be shorter. We demurred; and had to explain that we did not want the RNAV. Flew visual approach after reporting field in sight to uneventful landing. Report submitted to highlight issue of push from ATC to get late RNAV clearance. I have had this happen multiple times in DEN ATC airspace. Have actually called local ATC rep to discuss how much time is involved in briefing an RNAV approach properly prior to flying it. It appears that DEN ATC still has controllers that are either unaware or do not understand the threat for a poorly briefed/flown RNAV approach. We even have a pilot bulletin on the issue in Denver of all places that speaks to the profile being flown with autopilot to ensure separation is not lost.Pilots tend to ask for direct and shortcuts out of habit/culture; and ATC is accommodating. If we want to avoid issues we must ensure understanding on the part of ATC of pilot requirements. It can be hard when there are multiple airlines with different procedures; and some who seem to always be able to accept what ATC provides.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1427550
Time
Date	201702
Place
Locale Reference	DEN.Airport
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach STAR CREDE3
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Total 5674 Flight Crew Type 3006
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

B737 captain reported the tendency of denver approach controllers to push pilots to accept late RNAV approach clearances.