Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Sometime prior to the fix FILPZ (N35 34;5 W082 03.7) ATC cleared us to descend via the FILPZ1 RNAV North Transition. At the time of that clearance; the CLT ATIS indicated they were landing NORTH (we were expecting 36L). Thus we thought that to mean LANDING north. ATC questioned if we were on the NORTH transition and we said yes; then later he questioned our clearance because it was apparent we were heading slightly SOUTH navigating as if landing north.There was some ambiguity as to what that clearance actually meant.....was it to descend as if landing north ...like the ATIS indicated or was it to FLY the north transition. At some point ATC was asking for verification as to the clearance we were issued and subsequently gave us a heading and altitude to descend to (I believe it was 12;000 feet). At that point we were handed off to Charlotte approach and the rest of the flight was uneventful.I believe the problem arose due to some non-standard phraseology from ATC. If ATC would have indicated which direction CLT was landing ie... Descend via FILPZ 1 arrival LANDING SOUTH; this error would not have occurred. Other issues here were that ATIS showed landing NORTH; but had changed to landing SOUTH which contributed to this error.


Second narrative: In the descent into CLT on the FILPZ ONE RNAV arrival. Current ATIS had traffic landing north on 36L. When the controller mentioned north traffic we assumed they wanted us to fly the arrival landing 36L. As per ATIS. There was no mention of a new ATIS. When in the descent but before FILPZ waypoint the controller confirmed with us if they gave us the north transition. I asked if we were landing north or were we on the north transition. There wasn't a reply. There isn't standard phraseology by the controllers on this clearance. Most say landing north or landing 36L. This controller wanted us on the north transition landing south. They had changed the ATIS and not mentioned it. So they changed the runway to 18R and had us land with a tailwind. They gave us a heading and altitude at FILPZ waypoint. There wasn't any mention by ATC that anything was wrong. There was some confusion because they never mentioned the runway changed. When we departed again from CLT they had switched it back to landing/departing north. No standard phraseology used by the controllers. If the controller gave the runway then there won't be any confusion if it's a north transition or if we were landing north. There wasn't any mention of the ATIS changing when we checked in with the current ATIS. There is no label on the FILPZ ONE RNAV chart stipulating that there is a north or south 'transition'. We initially didn't hear the word transition because the ATIS had us landing north. Either way the controller shouldn't use the word transition when there is no transition depicted on the chart.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported being confused by a clearance to fly the FILPZ1 RNAV arrival to CLT with the north transition. The ATIS showed landing north so the crew assumed this meant to fly the transition leading to the north facing runways. The Controller meant for the crew to fly north to land south.