PLT UTILIZING THE CLT ARPT IS CONCERNED WITH ATC'S PROC WHEN VECTORING ACFT TO INTERCEPT PARALLEL RWY LOC'S.

Narrative

AT CLT APCH CTL; THE INITIAL CTLR OR THE FINAL CTLR WILL TYPICALLY; UPON AN ACFT'S HDOF INTO THEIR AIRSPACE; INFORM A FLT TO 'EXPECT' A CERTAIN RWY ASSIGNMENT. THE CTLR WILL USUALLY STATE; 'EXPECT RWY 36R;' OR 'EXPECT RWY 18L.' RWY ASSIGNMENT USUALLY WOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE ARR DIRECTION. THE ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY SEEMED TO BE SPLIT HALF OF THE TIME BTWN THE INITIAL OR THE FINAL APCH CTLR. IN THE PAST YRS; THERE WAS ABOUT A 90% CONSISTENCY THAT THIS INITIAL RWY ASSIGNMENT WOULD REMAIN CONSTANT. WITHIN THE PAST FEW MONTHS HOWEVER; PERHAPS IN THE INTEREST OF EXCELLENT SVC (WHICH IS MUCH APPRECIATED); OR TO EVENLY DIVIDE UP TFC FLOW BTWN THE 2 PARALLEL RWYS; ATC IS CHANGING THEIR PAST PRACTICE OF RWY CONTINUITY. THEY ARE NOW ASSIGNING RWYS EVEN IF IT IS ON THE MOST DISTANT SIDE OF THE ARPT. THIS WOULD CAUSE A CROSSOVER OF ACFT FLOW INTO ANOTHER ARR FLOW. BECAUSE THIS SIT HAS BEEN OCCURRING; IT IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL FOR A PLT TO HAVE THE CORRECT RWY ASSIGNMENT VERBALIZED. I PERCEIVE A SAFETY OF FLT DEGRADATION WHEN A RWY ASSIGNMENT HAS BEN AMENDED BY THE SUBSEQUENT CTLR. IN THESE INSTANCES; THE CLT APCH CTL FACILITY HAS THE UNDESIRABLE CULTURE OF STATING: 'INTERCEPT THE LOC.' 9 TIMES OUT OF 10; THEY WILL NOT RECONFIRM THE INTENDED RWY BY STATING THE EXACT RWY TO INTERCEPT. ALTHOUGH I AM NOT A CTLR; ONE HAS TO QUESTION WHETHER IT IS AN FAA CTLR'S HANDBOOK PHRASEOLOGY PROC TO CLR AN ACFT TO INTERCEPT A LOC WITH PARALLEL PROCS IN EFFECT; (TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF A PRACTICE TO SOMETIMES SWITCHING RWYS); AND NOT REITERATE ONE LAST TIME WHICH RWY IS ASSIGNED. I ASK THAT THE TWR MGR IN CLT REEXAMINE THE CULTURE AT THE FACILITY.