Narrative:

Our arrival was the riivr 2 into lax. We were flying a VNAV-equipped 737-300. Lax was using 25L and 24R for landing. In our arrival brief; we planned an ILS to 24R and placed it in the CDU. We then went fix-by-fix comparing the charts to the CDU. We also had out our ILS to 25L plates.everything looked good and was synced. We were given a clearance to fl 190 at gramm and a speed to 270 for the descent. All were programmed in. As we approached habso and maintaining the flight path; we were switched to socal approach. Socal approach assigned us; 'descend via the riivr 2 and cleared for the ILS 25L approach.'needless to say; we had to be very quick to reprogram the CDU for 25L and without a moving map display this took decidedly longer. We accomplished this but the habso; riivr; luvyn fixes went by before we could verify all of the altitudes on the CDU.I had to manually fly the altitudes until I could confirm the CDU was correct. If the habso or riivr altitudes had been wrong; we would not have been able to make the corrections. This is a perennial problem at lax and is not consistent with the procedures in the fom (verify and programming prior to top of descent).1. ATC should assign the runway earlier. Being assigned the runway at habso is very late in the process. 2. FMC capability should be increased so that several approaches can be preprogrammed without execution prior to top of descent and allow you to select the appropriate plan (a or B runway). We could select the other runway and execute; go through the points; and then reselect the other runway; execute; and go through the points; however; if you find an error you cannot permanently change it. It will not stay in memory once you select your primary guess should you need to change to the backup approach. 3. Get rid of or update all -300s. They are not equipped for the modern airspace. The moving map display is a must in the modern robust airspace.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 Captain describes the shortcomings of minimally equipped but technically RNAV capable aircraft when flying in complex terminal environments.

Narrative: Our arrival was the RIIVR 2 into LAX. We were flying a VNAV-equipped 737-300. LAX was using 25L and 24R for landing. In our arrival brief; we planned an ILS to 24R and placed it in the CDU. We then went fix-by-fix comparing the charts to the CDU. We also had out our ILS to 25L plates.Everything looked good and was synced. We were given a clearance to FL 190 at GRAMM and a speed to 270 for the descent. All were programmed in. As we approached HABSO and maintaining the flight path; we were switched to SoCal Approach. SoCal Approach assigned us; 'Descend via the RIIVR 2 and cleared for the ILS 25L approach.'Needless to say; we had to be very quick to reprogram the CDU for 25L and without a moving map display this took decidedly longer. We accomplished this but the HABSO; RIIVR; LUVYN fixes went by before we could verify all of the altitudes on the CDU.I had to manually fly the altitudes until I could confirm the CDU was correct. If the HABSO or RIIVR altitudes had been wrong; we would not have been able to make the corrections. This is a perennial problem at LAX and is not consistent with the procedures in the FOM (verify and programming prior to top of descent).1. ATC should assign the runway earlier. Being assigned the runway at HABSO is very late in the process. 2. FMC capability should be increased so that several approaches can be preprogrammed without execution prior to top of descent and allow you to select the appropriate plan (A or B runway). We could select the other runway and execute; go through the points; and then reselect the other runway; execute; and go through the points; however; if you find an error you cannot permanently change it. It will not stay in memory once you select your primary guess should you need to change to the backup approach. 3. Get rid of or update all -300s. They are not equipped for the modern airspace. The moving map display is a must in the modern robust airspace.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.