Narrative:

Arriving on GLASR1 from the northeast for landing north in seattle we were given vectors to a ILS because there was a solid layer of clouds south of the field precluding a normal visual. ATIS said the field was landing 34L. We were vectored off the arrival from the east while headed southbound to westbound then turned onto the ILS 34R. Established on the localizer at 4000 ft; cleared the approach; and were transitioning the flaps as we captured the glideslope. At approximately 3600 MSL on GS for 34R approach queried us relative to what runway we were shooting an approach to. I stated it was 34R and they issued go around instructions and maintain 3000 MSL. We continued straight ahead and stopped our descent at 3000; promptly accepted radar vectors westbound for what ended up being a left box pattern for vectors back to 34L for landing. We were sequenced in from the west for ILS 34L and landed on 34L without further event. There was at best an obvious lack of communication as to which runway we were being vectored for landing. We were never stated a given runway to which we to be 'controlled' to land during any of the approach sequence on the GLASR1. We had 34R; the closest runway for our arrival 'side' (northeast) in the primary FMS flight plan and had entered and also briefed ILS 34L in the secondary flight plan in the FMS in case we would be given that farthest runway. Nothing transpired or was stated by approach that even slightly hinted that we were being vectored to 34L (the far runway) nor is it my recollection that it was stated at any time during the crosswind turn or the turn to intercept. Of course we never accepted any visual clearance. I recall hearing the clearance to intercept the localizer to 34R. The aircraft was in an optimum position to receive and properly intercept and did fly a proper intercept on the 34R localizer. Another way to say the same thing is it would be very unlikely for a controller to give a localizer intercept clearance for 34L when the aircraft is still east of 34R! We may be both incorrect but I feel that is not the case. We were vectored to the 34R localizer for a 34R ILS; drove for a moment at 4000 MSL prior to the GS coming on scale to begin our descent. We were both baffled when the controller asked what runway we were on an ILS to!I do not know. We were readily prepared for either runway option but never were directed to plan B by ATC. I had a mental 'picture' of the potential action because as pilot monitoring I was 'prepped and ready' to change the ILS from our primary flight plan 34R to secondary 34L if the call came. I strongly dislike being face down in the FMS in the 'dog leg' portion of an arrival but it is required by ATC and traffic orientation sometimes. My recollection is the ATC intercept guidance for 34L did not happen; 'i.e. If I heard it I would have used the 34L option.' mention of 34L was only later when the controller spoke with us on the localizer and after GS intercept for 34R at approximately 3600 MSL. I checked the TCAS as soon as we were informed of the difference to opinion concerning where we were supposed to be and saw no other traffic in the 6 mile scaled screen. I do not feel we were in close proximity to another aircraft at that moment. It is worth noting; and this is often the case; cleaning up the flight plan in the crosswind (once vectored off the charted arrival; monitoring performance of directives on the radio; retransmissions of same. Maintaining a visual lookout in mostly VMC conditions for parallel runways; transitioning the aircraft if asked for; is a very focused period in time for the pilot monitoring. Things can get missed even though I don't feel that occurred in this instance. Another issue is attention span; while focused; is not necessarily optimum after almost 5 hrs flight time; even if adequately rested; fed and watered. Actually notify us of expected runway and approach type to be flown to; do the best to stick to the 'proposed' runway. Hire and train more controllers. Primary and as a backup.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain reported being vectored to the localizer for Runway 34R at SEA when the landing was Runway 34L. The Approach Controller issued go-around instructions. The crew complied and subsequently landed Runway 34L.

Narrative: Arriving on GLASR1 from the northeast for landing north in Seattle we were given vectors to a ILS because there was a solid layer of clouds south of the field precluding a normal visual. ATIS said the field was landing 34L. We were vectored off the arrival from the east while headed southbound to westbound then turned onto the ILS 34R. Established on the localizer at 4000 ft; cleared the approach; and were transitioning the flaps as we captured the glideslope. At approximately 3600 MSL on GS for 34R Approach queried us relative to what runway we were shooting an approach to. I stated it was 34R and they issued go around instructions and maintain 3000 MSL. We continued straight ahead and stopped our descent at 3000; promptly accepted radar vectors westbound for what ended up being a left box pattern for vectors back to 34L for landing. We were sequenced in from the west for ILS 34L and landed on 34L without further event. There was at best an obvious lack of communication as to which runway we were being vectored for landing. We were never stated a given runway to which we to be 'controlled' to land during any of the approach sequence on the GLASR1. We had 34R; the closest runway for our arrival 'side' (northeast) in the primary FMS flight plan and had entered and also briefed ILS 34L in the secondary flight plan in the FMS in case we would be given that farthest runway. Nothing transpired or was stated by approach that even slightly hinted that we were being vectored to 34L (the far runway) nor is it my recollection that it was stated at any time during the crosswind turn or the turn to intercept. Of course we never accepted any visual clearance. I recall hearing the clearance to intercept the localizer to 34R. The aircraft was in an optimum position to receive and properly intercept and DID fly a proper intercept on the 34R localizer. Another way to say the same thing is it would be very unlikely for a controller to give a localizer intercept clearance for 34L when the aircraft is still east of 34R! We may be both incorrect but I feel that is not the case. We were vectored to the 34R localizer for a 34R ILS; drove for a moment at 4000 MSL prior to the GS coming on scale to begin our descent. We were both baffled when the controller asked what runway we were on an ILS to!I do not know. We were readily prepared for either runway option but never were directed to plan B by ATC. I had a mental 'picture' of the potential action because as pilot monitoring I was 'prepped and ready' to change the ILS from our primary flight plan 34R to secondary 34L if the call came. I strongly dislike being face down in the FMS in the 'dog leg' portion of an arrival but it is required by ATC and traffic orientation sometimes. My recollection is the ATC intercept guidance for 34L did not happen; 'i.e. if I heard it I would have used the 34L option.' Mention of 34L was only later when the controller spoke with us on the localizer and after GS intercept for 34R at approximately 3600 MSL. I checked the TCAS as soon as we were informed of the difference to opinion concerning where we were supposed to be and saw no other traffic in the 6 mile scaled screen. I do not feel we were in close proximity to another aircraft at that moment. It is worth noting; and this is often the case; cleaning up the flight plan in the crosswind (once vectored off the charted arrival; monitoring performance of directives on the radio; retransmissions of same. maintaining a visual lookout in mostly VMC conditions for parallel runways; transitioning the aircraft if asked for; is a very focused period in time for the pilot monitoring. Things can get missed even though I don't feel that occurred in this instance. Another issue is attention span; while focused; is not necessarily optimum after almost 5 hrs flight time; even if adequately rested; fed and watered. Actually notify us of expected runway and approach type to be flown to; do the best to stick to the 'proposed' runway. Hire and train more controllers. Primary and as a backup.

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.