Narrative:

We were on an IFR flight plan approaching den. Apparently they just shifted from 26 lndgs to 8's, and we were given the upwind vectors from the southwest to the east side the airport and around to set up for 8L from the north. When we checked on with den approach control we advised we had the ATIS, but were not given a landing runway, only vectors. It is my understanding that approach control is supposed to give a landing runway when an aircraft advises it has the ATIS information. With the advanced cockpit we need that information to program the FMC and also brief the approach. In this instance we were at 9000' MSL on a base leg for 1 of the 8 runways at den, about 7 mi out, when they pointed out traffic, a commuter mdt for 8R which we not have in sight. The commuter called us in sight. Then approach asked if we had the airport. We said we did, and they cleared us for a visibility for 8L, which was the first time we heard our runway. We were at 9000' about 6 mi out and right about on the final 90 degrees to the runway when we received the visibility 8L clearance. The turn to the runway overshot the 8L and 8R finals, and we immediately started down with the airport in sight, but not the commuter on 8R. Descending we finally picked up the mdt as we were heading back to 8L, 500' below us, and we were crossing paths. I don't feel it correct to withhold landing runways until the last minute, thereby forcing us to go heads-down late in the approach or briefing late. Also, although it's done, and all too often in den, visibility approachs to parallel runways west/O both aircraft seeing each other are wrong--especially if one is in a position where the concentration of the cockpit is directed toward bringing the aircraft down for a high, close in position 90 degrees to the runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MLG HAD CONFLICT WITH COMMUTER ON VISUAL APCH TO DEN.

Narrative: WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN APCHING DEN. APPARENTLY THEY JUST SHIFTED FROM 26 LNDGS TO 8'S, AND WE WERE GIVEN THE UPWIND VECTORS FROM THE SW TO THE E SIDE THE ARPT AND AROUND TO SET UP FOR 8L FROM THE N. WHEN WE CHKED ON WITH DEN APCH CTL WE ADVISED WE HAD THE ATIS, BUT WERE NOT GIVEN A LNDG RWY, ONLY VECTORS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT APCH CTL IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE A LNDG RWY WHEN AN ACFT ADVISES IT HAS THE ATIS INFO. WITH THE ADVANCED COCKPIT WE NEED THAT INFO TO PROGRAM THE FMC AND ALSO BRIEF THE APCH. IN THIS INSTANCE WE WERE AT 9000' MSL ON A BASE LEG FOR 1 OF THE 8 RWYS AT DEN, ABOUT 7 MI OUT, WHEN THEY POINTED OUT TFC, A COMMUTER MDT FOR 8R WHICH WE NOT HAVE IN SIGHT. THE COMMUTER CALLED US IN SIGHT. THEN APCH ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT. WE SAID WE DID, AND THEY CLRED US FOR A VIS FOR 8L, WHICH WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD OUR RWY. WE WERE AT 9000' ABOUT 6 MI OUT AND RIGHT ABOUT ON THE FINAL 90 DEGS TO THE RWY WHEN WE RECEIVED THE VIS 8L CLRNC. THE TURN TO THE RWY OVERSHOT THE 8L AND 8R FINALS, AND WE IMMEDIATELY STARTED DOWN WITH THE ARPT IN SIGHT, BUT NOT THE COMMUTER ON 8R. DSNDING WE FINALLY PICKED UP THE MDT AS WE WERE HDG BACK TO 8L, 500' BELOW US, AND WE WERE XING PATHS. I DON'T FEEL IT CORRECT TO WITHHOLD LNDG RWYS UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE, THEREBY FORCING US TO GO HEADS-DOWN LATE IN THE APCH OR BRIEFING LATE. ALSO, ALTHOUGH IT'S DONE, AND ALL TOO OFTEN IN DEN, VIS APCHS TO PARALLEL RWYS W/O BOTH ACFT SEEING EACH OTHER ARE WRONG--ESPECIALLY IF ONE IS IN A POS WHERE THE CONCENTRATION OF THE COCKPIT IS DIRECTED TOWARD BRINGING THE ACFT DOWN FOR A HIGH, CLOSE IN POS 90 DEGS TO THE RWY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.