Narrative:

On the bonvl five arrival into pdx. About 5 miles east of dufur at FL220 we were given clearance to descend via the bonvl five arrival landing west. We continued our descent and were re-cleared passing 16000 ft to descend via the bonvl five arrival landing east. We accepted the clearance; however; we continued to target the 'at or above' altitudes as depicted on the arrival. As the PF my mindset and goal was to keep the aircraft as close to the 'at' altitudes as published. Passing 12800 ft ATC pimped our flight as to landing east on the bonvl five requires 14000 ft at bonvl. He re-cleared us to 12000 ft at bonvl and we leveled off at 12000 ft. Technically we were still above the at or above altitudes; but would need to climb back up to 14000 ft to comply with the bonvl five landing east. Although acknowledging the switch from west to east; as the PF I continued to target the lower altitudes depicted on the arrival resulting in an altitude lower than what was necessary for the approach clearance given. A closer review and backup of the box could have prevented this from occurring. In the future; approaches which have not been flown in months will be treated with much greater scrutiny. I thought I was adhering conservatively to the arrival; but in fact was adhering too tightly to the arrival and not reading completely the arrival procedure. ATC was contacted on the ground by the PNF. ATC apologized for the confusion on delivering the improper west arrival clearance; then switching the clearance mid-arrival. PNF also apologized for not catching the 14000 ft restr at bonvl. Both agreed a better job of communication could have occurred from both sides. Ultimately; the misread of the arrival procedure by the PF (me) was the critical error. Also; the communication within the cockpit could have been enhanced by a more thorough challenge/response by the PNF/PF as to the 2000 ft low increasing to 5000 ft low on the VNAV. His challenge was acknowledged; but not thoroughly investigated as the printed arrival procedure was giving a false confidence to the PF (me). I think the arrival procedure is misleading. Perhaps for crews who have flown this arrival multiple times; they understand to disregard the suggested 'at or above' altitudes which happen to be 5000 ft lower than required for the arrival if landing east. Having said that; humility leads me to believe this was also my error as the VNAV; PNF and the printed arrival all should have pointed my thinking to take appropriate action.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CREW MISSES CONDITIONAL CROSSING RESTR AT BONVL ON THE BONVL 5 ARR INTO PDX AFTER RWY CHANGE.

Narrative: ON THE BONVL FIVE ARR INTO PDX. ABOUT 5 MILES E OF DUFUR AT FL220 WE WERE GIVEN CLRNC TO DESCEND VIA THE BONVL FIVE ARR LNDG W. WE CONTINUED OUR DESCENT AND WERE RE-CLEARED PASSING 16000 FT TO DESCEND VIA THE BONVL FIVE ARR LNDG E. WE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC; HOWEVER; WE CONTINUED TO TARGET THE 'AT OR ABOVE' ALTITUDES AS DEPICTED ON THE ARR. AS THE PF MY MINDSET AND GOAL WAS TO KEEP THE ACFT AS CLOSE TO THE 'AT' ALTITUDES AS PUBLISHED. PASSING 12800 FT ATC PIMPED OUR FLT AS TO LNDG E ON THE BONVL FIVE REQUIRES 14000 FT AT BONVL. HE RE-CLEARED US TO 12000 FT AT BONVL AND WE LEVELED OFF AT 12000 FT. TECHNICALLY WE WERE STILL ABOVE THE AT OR ABOVE ALTITUDES; BUT WOULD NEED TO CLIMB BACK UP TO 14000 FT TO COMPLY WITH THE BONVL FIVE LNDG E. ALTHOUGH ACKNOWLEDGING THE SWITCH FROM W TO E; AS THE PF I CONTINUED TO TARGET THE LOWER ALTITUDES DEPICTED ON THE ARR RESULTING IN AN ALT LOWER THAN WHAT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE APCH CLRNC GIVEN. A CLOSER REVIEW AND BACKUP OF THE BOX COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS FROM OCCURRING. IN THE FUTURE; APPROACHES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FLOWN IN MONTHS WILL BE TREATED WITH MUCH GREATER SCRUTINY. I THOUGHT I WAS ADHERING CONSERVATIVELY TO THE ARR; BUT IN FACT WAS ADHERING TOO TIGHTLY TO THE ARR AND NOT READING COMPLETELY THE ARR PROC. ATC WAS CONTACTED ON THE GND BY THE PNF. ATC APOLOGIZED FOR THE CONFUSION ON DELIVERING THE IMPROPER W ARR CLRNC; THEN SWITCHING THE CLRNC MID-ARRIVAL. PNF ALSO APOLOGIZED FOR NOT CATCHING THE 14000 FT RESTR AT BONVL. BOTH AGREED A BETTER JOB OF COMMUNICATION COULD HAVE OCCURRED FROM BOTH SIDES. ULTIMATELY; THE MISREAD OF THE ARR PROC BY THE PF (ME) WAS THE CRITICAL ERROR. ALSO; THE COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE COCKPIT COULD HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BY A MORE THOROUGH CHALLENGE/RESPONSE BY THE PNF/PF AS TO THE 2000 FT LOW INCREASING TO 5000 FT LOW ON THE VNAV. HIS CHALLENGE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED; BUT NOT THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AS THE PRINTED ARR PROC WAS GIVING A FALSE CONFIDENCE TO THE PF (ME). I THINK THE ARR PROC IS MISLEADING. PERHAPS FOR CREWS WHO HAVE FLOWN THIS ARR MULTIPLE TIMES; THEY UNDERSTAND TO DISREGARD THE SUGGESTED 'AT OR ABOVE' ALTITUDES WHICH HAPPEN TO BE 5000 FT LOWER THAN REQUIRED FOR THE ARR IF LNDG E. HAVING SAID THAT; HUMILITY LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THIS WAS ALSO MY ERROR AS THE VNAV; PNF AND THE PRINTED ARR ALL SHOULD HAVE POINTED MY THINKING TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.