Narrative:

At clt approach control, the initial controller or the final controller will typically, upon an aircraft's handoff into their airspace, inform a flight to 'expect' a certain runway assignment. The controller will usually state, 'expect runway 36R,' or 'expect runway 18L.' runway assignment usually would correspond with the arrival direction. The assigning responsibility seemed to be split half of the time between the initial or the final approach controller. In the past yrs, there was about a 90% consistency that this initial runway assignment would remain constant. Within the past few months however, perhaps in the interest of excellent service (which is much appreciated), or to evenly divide up traffic flow between the 2 parallel runways, ATC is changing their past practice of runway continuity. They are now assigning runways even if it is on the most distant side of the airport. This would cause a crossover of aircraft flow into another arrival flow. Because this situation has been occurring, it is even more critical for a pilot to have the correct runway assignment verbalized. I perceive a safety of flight degradation when a runway assignment has ben amended by the subsequent controller. In these instances, the clt approach control facility has the undesirable culture of stating: 'intercept the localizer.' 9 times out of 10, they will not reconfirm the intended runway by stating the exact runway to intercept. Although I am not a controller, one has to question whether it is an FAA controller's handbook phraseology procedure to clear an aircraft to intercept a localizer with parallel procedures in effect, (taking into account of a practice to sometimes switching runways), and not reiterate one last time which runway is assigned. I ask that the tower manager in clt reexamine the culture at the facility.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT UTILIZING THE CLT ARPT IS CONCERNED WITH ATC'S PROC WHEN VECTORING ACFT TO INTERCEPT PARALLEL RWY LOC'S.

Narrative: AT CLT APCH CTL, THE INITIAL CTLR OR THE FINAL CTLR WILL TYPICALLY, UPON AN ACFT'S HDOF INTO THEIR AIRSPACE, INFORM A FLT TO 'EXPECT' A CERTAIN RWY ASSIGNMENT. THE CTLR WILL USUALLY STATE, 'EXPECT RWY 36R,' OR 'EXPECT RWY 18L.' RWY ASSIGNMENT USUALLY WOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE ARR DIRECTION. THE ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY SEEMED TO BE SPLIT HALF OF THE TIME BTWN THE INITIAL OR THE FINAL APCH CTLR. IN THE PAST YRS, THERE WAS ABOUT A 90% CONSISTENCY THAT THIS INITIAL RWY ASSIGNMENT WOULD REMAIN CONSTANT. WITHIN THE PAST FEW MONTHS HOWEVER, PERHAPS IN THE INTEREST OF EXCELLENT SVC (WHICH IS MUCH APPRECIATED), OR TO EVENLY DIVIDE UP TFC FLOW BTWN THE 2 PARALLEL RWYS, ATC IS CHANGING THEIR PAST PRACTICE OF RWY CONTINUITY. THEY ARE NOW ASSIGNING RWYS EVEN IF IT IS ON THE MOST DISTANT SIDE OF THE ARPT. THIS WOULD CAUSE A CROSSOVER OF ACFT FLOW INTO ANOTHER ARR FLOW. BECAUSE THIS SIT HAS BEEN OCCURRING, IT IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL FOR A PLT TO HAVE THE CORRECT RWY ASSIGNMENT VERBALIZED. I PERCEIVE A SAFETY OF FLT DEGRADATION WHEN A RWY ASSIGNMENT HAS BEN AMENDED BY THE SUBSEQUENT CTLR. IN THESE INSTANCES, THE CLT APCH CTL FACILITY HAS THE UNDESIRABLE CULTURE OF STATING: 'INTERCEPT THE LOC.' 9 TIMES OUT OF 10, THEY WILL NOT RECONFIRM THE INTENDED RWY BY STATING THE EXACT RWY TO INTERCEPT. ALTHOUGH I AM NOT A CTLR, ONE HAS TO QUESTION WHETHER IT IS AN FAA CTLR'S HANDBOOK PHRASEOLOGY PROC TO CLR AN ACFT TO INTERCEPT A LOC WITH PARALLEL PROCS IN EFFECT, (TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF A PRACTICE TO SOMETIMES SWITCHING RWYS), AND NOT REITERATE ONE LAST TIME WHICH RWY IS ASSIGNED. I ASK THAT THE TWR MGR IN CLT REEXAMINE THE CULTURE AT THE FACILITY.

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.