An air carrier was vectored downwind; then given a turn to intercept dfw runway 17C but the captain ...

Narrative:

On downwind to dfw; approach informed us we could expect an extended final for runway 17C. Within a few seconds they gave us a short vector for base. I noticed the pilot flying (PF) placed an intercept course in the FMS. We were giving an intercept heading and were instructed to intercept the localizer for runway 17C. The PF was flying purple needles and I was in green. As we rolled out on final; we; unknowingly; were perfectly aligned for 17R. The PF was showing on course. Immediately the tower called and said it appeared we were off course and told us to check our localizer frequency. At the same moment I looked down and noticed the full scale deflection on the localizer. As I quickly looked down to verify the frequency the captain's charts fell behind his seat. I told the PF we were on the wrong runway; pointed out the runway out the window; and pointed at my HSI. The PF did not seem to believe me and we continued the approach. Maybe two seconds later the tower called again and said that we were indeed aligned for 17R. The PF executed a low level sidestep maneuver for the correct runway. We landed with flaps 22; and at least 60kts over ref. There was no loss of separation or further communication from tower. I had previously challenged the PF on another leg about using magenta needles inside the FAF on a localizer based approach. He stated we could use them outside the FAF however he never changed then back to green after passing the fix. This threat quickly turned into an error. Additionally; an unstabilized approach to landing was flown. The aircraft landed in an unplanned configuration (flight computer was only calculated for flaps 45). My biggest take away; and perhaps my biggest frustration; is I should have called a go-around. There obvious red flags during this approach which just screamed for us to go around; take our time; and get it right. In the future; I certainly won't hesitate to challenge the PF and call a go-around when needed.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Air Carrier was vectored downwind; then given a turn to intercept DFW Runway 17C but the Captain misprogrammed the FMC for 17R and would not accept the First Officer's comments until ATC issued a new clearance. An unstabilized approach resulted.

Narrative: On downwind to DFW; Approach informed us we could expect an extended final for Runway 17C. Within a few seconds they gave us a short vector for base. I noticed the pilot flying (PF) placed an intercept course in the FMS. We were giving an intercept heading and were instructed to intercept the localizer for runway 17C. The PF was flying purple needles and I was in green. As we rolled out on final; we; unknowingly; were perfectly aligned for 17R. The PF was showing on course. Immediately the Tower called and said it appeared we were off course and told us to check our LOC frequency. At the same moment I looked down and noticed the full scale deflection on the LOC. As I quickly looked down to verify the frequency the Captain's charts fell behind his seat. I told the PF we were on the wrong runway; pointed out the runway out the window; and pointed at my HSI. The PF did not seem to believe me and we continued the approach. Maybe two seconds later the Tower called again and said that we were indeed aligned for 17R. The PF executed a low level sidestep maneuver for the correct runway. We landed with flaps 22; and at least 60kts over ref. There was no loss of separation or further communication from tower. I had previously challenged the PF on another leg about using magenta needles inside the FAF on a LOC based approach. He stated we could use them outside the FAF however he never changed then back to green after passing the fix. This threat quickly turned into an error. Additionally; an unstabilized approach to landing was flown. The aircraft landed in an unplanned configuration (flight computer was only calculated for flaps 45). My biggest take away; and perhaps my biggest frustration; is I should have called a go-around. There obvious red flags during this approach which just screamed for us to go around; take our time; and get it right. In the future; I certainly won't hesitate to challenge the PF and call a go-around when needed.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Attributes
ACN	1202663
Time
Date	201408
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	DFW.Airport
State Reference	TX
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	FMS/FMC
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach

An air carrier was vectored downwind; then given a turn to intercept dfw runway 17C but the captain misprogrammed the FMC for 17R and would not accept the first officer's comments until ATC issued a new clearance. An unstabilized approach resulted.