Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were following the GRNPA RNAV STAR into LAS and were anticipating a landing on 19R. We scrolled through the FMS database for approaches to 19R and our only option was an RNAV approach. The approach was loaded in. Since it was early in the arrival segment ATC had not given us an approach to expect so we loaded it under the pretense that we could easily change it if they gave us a different runway.Shortly thereafter ATC told us to expect the 'visual RNAV to 19R.' I read back the clearance and spent the next few minutes considering what the clearance meant as we had no such option in our database. I asked the SIC if he understood what that meant and we had a short conversation about our impressions during which we were cleared for that approach. We came to no real conclusions about the clearance.In the end; I interpreted it to mean that it was a visual approach in which we were to intercept the approach course on our own but adhere to the published altitudes for that segment that we were on. I told the SIC to go ahead and intercept off a heading he was comfortable with and hit the published altitudes. He then made a 10-15 degree turn to the right to intercept and within 10 seconds ATC queried us as to whether or not we were familiar with the 'visual RNAV 19R.' I said that we had the RNAV approach loaded and I suppose that was the extent of our familiarity. The controller then gave us a lower altitude and cleared us to 'turn left immediately to a heading of 240.' He told us to 'cancel your approach clearance and expect a visual to 19R.' We complied and were subsequently cleared for a visual approach and landed uneventfully.After shutdown I called an ACP to ask if there were any other instances of this happening as I was confused about what the proper procedure was. He was familiar with my issue and had told me that the Visual RNAV approaches were not in the Phenom databases yet and ATC had been previously informed that all our company fleets had the capability of doing them; but that ATC did not know the Phenom fleet could NOT do them yet. As a result we got cleared for one.As PIC; I should have queried ATC about the clearance to make absolutely sure everyone was on the same page and not be left to possibly interpret incorrectly. Phenom crews and LAS ATC may need to be informed of the limitations of the aircraft when it comes to those approaches.




Synopsis: Confusion reigned when the flight crew of an EMB Phenom was cleared for the RNAV visual to Runway 19R at LAS but discovered it was not in their FMS database. The fractional operator had failed to inform ATC; or the Phenom flight crews; that the company's Phenom fleet was not yet equipped to conduct that approach although they had earlier advised that all of their fleets were configured to do so.