Narrative:

Dca tower has a habit of changing runway clrncs on initial contact. The radio phraseology used, however, is inadequate to immediately alert the crew that a runway change is being requested. This caused an unnecessary go-around on a flight I was working and may lead to more significant problems if not rectified. I was the first officer on flight cf from pit to dca. The captain was working the radios as I flew the approach into dca. We were following another aircraft visually as we maneuvered south of the airport and were cleared for the mount vernon visual to runway 36. The other aircraft had slowed to final approach speed while still 10 mi from the airport, and things got slightly hectic as we rapidly configured for the approach and ran the final landing checklist. When approach switched us to local, the frequency was congested and it took quite a while to get a word in. The captain finally was able to contact the tower after we were well inside the outer marker for runway 36. I remember the reply as follows: 'air carrier cf, washington tower, cleared to land runway 33, aircraft will depart runway 36 prior to your arrival'. The captain acknowledged, but did not hear the different runway number. The engineer and I heard the change, and we both thought the change was a mistake considering the fact that we were on a 1 mi final, numerous similar-sounding numbers were being thrown around (air carrier cf mount vernon visual 36, runway 36, etc.), and runway changes are seldom made without a 'change to' or 'circle to land' thrown in to get your attention. By the time the captain was able to confirm our runway assignment, we were around 1000 AGL and an aircraft had taxied into position on 36. The tower replied that we were cleared to go to runway 33 on initial contact and attempted to have the aircraft in position on 36 clear the runway. (A different voice made this transmission, evidently controller training was in progress.) the captain had had enough by this point and instructed me to go around. Ironically, the aircraft following us after we finally landed had similar confusion over this poor phraseology. All that is necessary to correct this situation is for dca tower to add on word to its landing clrncs: change. It immediately signals the crew that everything they were set up for is now out the window and a new plan is in order. Air carrier cf change to runway 33, cleared to land...'. Very difficult to get confused over that clearance. Much too easy the way things are done now. (By the way, I think the whole idea of landing jet transports on a 5000' runway surrounded by water is idiotic to begin with.)

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT MISSED RWY CHANGE AND HAD TO GO AROUND WHEN AN ACFT WAS CLEARED ONTO APCH RWY.

Narrative: DCA TWR HAS A HABIT OF CHANGING RWY CLRNCS ON INITIAL CONTACT. THE RADIO PHRASEOLOGY USED, HOWEVER, IS INADEQUATE TO IMMEDIATELY ALERT THE CREW THAT A RWY CHANGE IS BEING REQUESTED. THIS CAUSED AN UNNECESSARY GO-AROUND ON A FLT I WAS WORKING AND MAY LEAD TO MORE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IF NOT RECTIFIED. I WAS THE F/O ON FLT CF FROM PIT TO DCA. THE CAPT WAS WORKING THE RADIOS AS I FLEW THE APCH INTO DCA. WE WERE FOLLOWING ANOTHER ACFT VISUALLY AS WE MANEUVERED SOUTH OF THE ARPT AND WERE CLRED FOR THE MOUNT VERNON VISUAL TO RWY 36. THE OTHER ACFT HAD SLOWED TO FINAL APCH SPEED WHILE STILL 10 MI FROM THE ARPT, AND THINGS GOT SLIGHTLY HECTIC AS WE RAPIDLY CONFIGURED FOR THE APCH AND RAN THE FINAL LNDG CHECKLIST. WHEN APCH SWITCHED US TO LOCAL, THE FREQ WAS CONGESTED AND IT TOOK QUITE A WHILE TO GET A WORD IN. THE CAPT FINALLY WAS ABLE TO CONTACT THE TWR AFTER WE WERE WELL INSIDE THE OUTER MARKER FOR RWY 36. I REMEMBER THE REPLY AS FOLLOWS: 'ACR CF, WASHINGTON TWR, CLRED TO LAND RWY 33, ACFT WILL DEPART RWY 36 PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL'. THE CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT DID NOT HEAR THE DIFFERENT RWY NUMBER. THE ENGINEER AND I HEARD THE CHANGE, AND WE BOTH THOUGHT THE CHANGE WAS A MISTAKE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE WERE ON A 1 MI FINAL, NUMEROUS SIMILAR-SOUNDING NUMBERS WERE BEING THROWN AROUND (ACR CF MOUNT VERNON VISUAL 36, RWY 36, ETC.), AND RWY CHANGES ARE SELDOM MADE WITHOUT A 'CHANGE TO' OR 'CIRCLE TO LAND' THROWN IN TO GET YOUR ATTN. BY THE TIME THE CAPT WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM OUR RWY ASSIGNMENT, WE WERE AROUND 1000 AGL AND AN ACFT HAD TAXIED INTO POSITION ON 36. THE TWR REPLIED THAT WE WERE CLRED TO GO TO RWY 33 ON INITIAL CONTACT AND ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THE ACFT IN POSITION ON 36 CLEAR THE RWY. (A DIFFERENT VOICE MADE THIS XMISSION, EVIDENTLY CTLR TRAINING WAS IN PROGRESS.) THE CAPT HAD HAD ENOUGH BY THIS POINT AND INSTRUCTED ME TO GO AROUND. IRONICALLY, THE ACFT FOLLOWING US AFTER WE FINALLY LANDED HAD SIMILAR CONFUSION OVER THIS POOR PHRASEOLOGY. ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO CORRECT THIS SITUATION IS FOR DCA TWR TO ADD ON WORD TO ITS LNDG CLRNCS: CHANGE. IT IMMEDIATELY SIGNALS THE CREW THAT EVERYTHING THEY WERE SET UP FOR IS NOW OUT THE WINDOW AND A NEW PLAN IS IN ORDER. ACR CF CHANGE TO RWY 33, CLRED TO LAND...'. VERY DIFFICULT TO GET CONFUSED OVER THAT CLRNC. MUCH TOO EASY THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE NOW. (BY THE WAY, I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF LNDG JET TRANSPORTS ON A 5000' RWY SURROUNDED BY WATER IS IDIOTIC TO BEGIN WITH.)

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.