Narrative:

While conducting operational experience [training] (oe) for a returning first officer we were about to land in 28R in sfo. Tower advised caution for wake turbulence for a heavy jet [that] took off prior to our landing on 28L. During the flare we encountered turbulence and what seemed a loss of energy/airspeed. I quickly took over and added thrust to regain airspeed and decided a complete go around was the best course of action. We returned for a visual approach. There was confusion on final as to which runway we had been cleared to land on. Approach cleared us for approach to 28L. Tower thought [it] was 28R and issued landing clearance 28R which we did not hear and replied cleared to land 28L which they did not hear. A heavy jet was then cleared to line up and wait 28L. Tower then asked us to confirm our landing runway clearance we responded 28L. Tower then cleared us to sidestep and land 28R which we did without incident. I made a follow up call to the tower supervisor who reviewed the tapes prior to our discussion. I discussed this event with sfo tower supervisor who reviewed the tapes. He explained norcal failed to include 28L for approach in our data block for our second approach. We were told to expect and planned on an approach to 28L. We were then cleared for a visual approach to 28L. Tower did not have this information in the data block. We apparently were cleared to land 28R. I did not hear this. I heard and responded cleared to land 28L. Tower did not hear my response. I think the omission of 28L in the data block was a significant factor in this event. The flight status after this event is that we sidestepped to runway 28R and landed without incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reports a go-around during landing due wake turbulence from a heavy jet departing the adjacent runway. During the second approach there is miscommunication and confusion about the assigned runway for landing and the Tower issues a side step to 28R at the last minute.

Narrative: While conducting operational experience [training] (OE) for a returning First Officer we were about to land in 28R in SFO. Tower advised caution for wake turbulence for a heavy jet [that] took off prior to our landing on 28L. During the flare we encountered turbulence and what seemed a loss of energy/airspeed. I quickly took over and added thrust to regain airspeed and decided a complete go around was the best course of action. We returned for a visual approach. There was confusion on final as to which runway we had been cleared to land on. Approach cleared us for approach to 28L. Tower thought [it] was 28R and issued landing clearance 28R which we did not hear and replied cleared to land 28L which they did not hear. A heavy jet was then cleared to line up and wait 28L. Tower then asked us to confirm our landing runway clearance we responded 28L. Tower then cleared us to sidestep and land 28R which we did without incident. I made a follow up call to the tower supervisor who reviewed the tapes prior to our discussion. I discussed this event with SFO tower supervisor who reviewed the tapes. He explained NORCAL failed to include 28L for approach in our data block for our second approach. We were told to expect and planned on an approach to 28L. We were then cleared for a visual approach to 28L. Tower did not have this information in the data block. We apparently were cleared to land 28R. I did not hear this. I heard and responded cleared to land 28L. Tower did not hear my response. I think the omission of 28L in the data block was a significant factor in this event. The flight status after this event is that we sidestepped to runway 28R and landed without incident.

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.