Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower JFK
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Received JFK ATIS and briefed the VOR/DME 22L approach. Weather was VFR. Late in the descent; Approach told us to expect the 'GPS 13L' approach. Upon hearing 'GPS' we narrowed our search to RNAV approaches. We went to the ARRIVAL page of the FMC and selected the RNAV 13L approach. While reviewing the approach we were cleared to proceed direct 'ASALT' which is the initial fix for the RNAV 13L approach. This reinforced our choice of approach. We loaded the FMC and briefed the approach in accordance with company procedures. Approach and landing were uneventful. Upon subsequent review and discussion; we came to the following conclusion: The GPS 13L is listed in the FMC as the VOR 13L. It is listed on the JEPP plate as 'VOR or GPS 13L/R'. ASALT is the initial fix for these approaches as well as the RNAV 13L. These approaches have similar tracks but are obviously different approaches. Since VOR and GPS approaches are usually not referenced with one another; when we heard the term 'GPS' in the clearance; we associated it with the RNAV approach. Due to limited choices in the FMC (it is the only RNAV approach listed to Runway 13L) and the same initial fix; we selected the RNAV 13L as the approach. As a result; we were led down a path that allowed us to make a choice that was not the intended approach. Had we been aware that the GPS and VOR were essentially the same approach; we would have queried the Controller as to his true intentions for the approach. This would have resolved any conflicts. We are cautioning other pilots to be extra vigilant when selecting approaches in the FMC. Normally we do not expect to retrieve a GPS approach under a VOR title. If the GPS approach was coded separately in the FMC and separately on the JEPP approach plate; this situation could have been avoided. I suggest that the VOR 13L/R and the GPS 13L/R at JFK be identified on separate JEPP approach plates and identified separately in the FMC database. This will help pilots to avoid a situation similar to the one we encountered.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: An Air Carrier was cleared for the JFK GPS 13L but selected RNAV 13 because the crew did not see the FMS database index single approach chart labeled VOR OR GPS 13L. The IAF is common to all three approaches but the RNAV FAF and Missed Approach Procedures are different.