Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E D21
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While at cruise we briefed the PRM approach for Runway 22R (both the textual and the approach plate). As with past experience this is the expected runway with the Polar arrival from the northwest. Passing through 15;000 feet. with Approach Control we were assigned Runway 22L ILS. As the ATIS vaguely stated they were using ILS Y RY 22R and RY 21L approach with the message ILS Y is offset by 2.5 degrees expect PRM. As stated we briefed and set up for Runway 22R PRM then assigned 22L passing through 15;000 feet. We then queried if the 22L approach would be a PRM since we did not see an approach plate and was not stated by ATC when the runway was assigned. After a few minutes had passed searching for the missing approach plate and given the opportunity to speak up with the frequency being busy we notified them that we did not have the appropriate approach plate but could accept the RNAV PRM Z 22L. They then assigned us the RNAV approach (aircraft was more than ten miles from the approach fix they assigned us to fly direct to and more than 30 miles from the runway) and subsequently two [company] aircraft spoke up and stated they did not have the ILS 22L PRM approach either.Rest of approach/landing was uneventful until Operations passed along that the Control Tower wanted us to call them after we had been parked at the gate for a few minutes. The Control Tower's issue was the late notification that we were unable to accept the approach (less than a 100 miles) and that we did not have the approach plate. We communicated that we in fact briefed the expected approach more than 200 miles out and had the textual PRM approach plate for all runways and the PRM approach plate for the expected runway 22R. They completely understood and at this point of the conversation and wanted to know why we or the other mentioned company no longer had ILS PRM approach for 22L. The trap here is expecting to have the necessary resources needed to complete the flight. Not only did we have textual information about all PRM approaches for Detroit metro; but also had the appropriate PRM approach chart for the expected runway. So one would assume they had all needed charts at this point. The threat was mitigated as soon as possible once identified and ATC was able to accommodate.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported issues with lack of published procedures for a particular approach into DTW.