Flight crew of GLF4 experience flawed handling by L30 approach controller on STAR arrs.

Attributes
ACN	605447
Time
Date	200401
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : las.vortac
State Reference	NV
Altitude	msl single value : 13000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : l30.tracon tracon : c90.tracon
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Gulfstream IV
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival star : cre30
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 91.5 flight time total : 10774 flight time type : 2209
ASRS Report	605447
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance Chart Or Publication
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

We departed bur for las on a flight plan filed for creso STAR. Clearance delivery cleared us to dag and clarr. We were cleared to cross clarr at 13000 ft. Note that the idale STAR is 13000 ft for clarr and the clarr STAR is 12000 ft for clarr. Prior to reaching clarr, there were several xmissions from las approach regarding a shift change issued to other aircraft. Approximately upon reaching clarr, the controller told us to 'descend via the idale, expect runway 25R.' we scrambled for the chart and loaded the arrival. I selected the next altitude and direct to idale. This occurred within a few seconds. The controller asked where we were going, that we were 20 degrees off. This did not appear to make sense. The controller then issued 050 degree heading and asked when we could navigation to bld. We told him that we were able. The heading paralleled the arrival. This aroused our suspicions. We were not issued the idale until we were told to descend via. I called TRACON on the ground to find out what went on. I explained that we were complying with the instructions. I was told that there was no creso arrival and that next time we should not try to comply with ATC instruction, but tell them what we are doing! It appeared that, because we were proceeding to clarr at 13000 ft, they thought that we were on the idale as opposed to the clarr which crosses at 12000 ft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter and analyst determined that idale was not the referenced arrival to which they were switched. Reporter believes it was likely the kepec RNAV arrival on which clarr is also utilized, but at which the altitude is 13000 ft vice 12000 ft on the clarr arrival. The underlying problem appears to reporter to be that L30 TRACON is having difficulty in adapting to the multitude of arrival procedures into las. Similar reports indicate that significant efforts need to be made to standardize phraseology, procedures and techniques applied by L30 to these arrs.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF GLF4 EXPERIENCE FLAWED HANDLING BY L30 APCH CTLR ON STAR ARRS.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED BUR FOR LAS ON A FLT PLAN FILED FOR CRESO STAR. CLRNC DELIVERY CLRED US TO DAG AND CLARR. WE WERE CLRED TO CROSS CLARR AT 13000 FT. NOTE THAT THE IDALE STAR IS 13000 FT FOR CLARR AND THE CLARR STAR IS 12000 FT FOR CLARR. PRIOR TO REACHING CLARR, THERE WERE SEVERAL XMISSIONS FROM LAS APCH REGARDING A SHIFT CHANGE ISSUED TO OTHER ACFT. APPROX UPON REACHING CLARR, THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'DSND VIA THE IDALE, EXPECT RWY 25R.' WE SCRAMBLED FOR THE CHART AND LOADED THE ARR. I SELECTED THE NEXT ALT AND DIRECT TO IDALE. THIS OCCURRED WITHIN A FEW SECONDS. THE CTLR ASKED WHERE WE WERE GOING, THAT WE WERE 20 DEGS OFF. THIS DID NOT APPEAR TO MAKE SENSE. THE CTLR THEN ISSUED 050 DEG HDG AND ASKED WHEN WE COULD NAV TO BLD. WE TOLD HIM THAT WE WERE ABLE. THE HDG PARALLELED THE ARR. THIS AROUSED OUR SUSPICIONS. WE WERE NOT ISSUED THE IDALE UNTIL WE WERE TOLD TO DSND VIA. I CALLED TRACON ON THE GND TO FIND OUT WHAT WENT ON. I EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS. I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO CRESO ARR AND THAT NEXT TIME WE SHOULD NOT TRY TO COMPLY WITH ATC INSTRUCTION, BUT TELL THEM WHAT WE ARE DOING! IT APPEARED THAT, BECAUSE WE WERE PROCEEDING TO CLARR AT 13000 FT, THEY THOUGHT THAT WE WERE ON THE IDALE AS OPPOSED TO THE CLARR WHICH CROSSES AT 12000 FT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR AND ANALYST DETERMINED THAT IDALE WAS NOT THE REFED ARR TO WHICH THEY WERE SWITCHED. RPTR BELIEVES IT WAS LIKELY THE KEPEC RNAV ARR ON WHICH CLARR IS ALSO UTILIZED, BUT AT WHICH THE ALT IS 13000 FT VICE 12000 FT ON THE CLARR ARR. THE UNDERLYING PROB APPEARS TO RPTR TO BE THAT L30 TRACON IS HAVING DIFFICULTY IN ADAPTING TO THE MULTITUDE OF ARR PROCS INTO LAS. SIMILAR RPTS INDICATE THAT SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS NEED TO BE MADE TO STANDARDIZE PHRASEOLOGY, PROCS AND TECHNIQUES APPLIED BY L30 TO THESE ARRS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.