Emb-175 flight crew reported receiving contradictory expected runway information between approach co...

Narrative:

On arrival into ord; my first officer and I received notification that the expected arrival runway was 27L. A visual approach clearance to runway 27L was then given by approach control. After being switched to ord tower; there was possible confusion on which runway we were supposed to be assigned. Tower cleared us to land on runway 27L then informed us to change to runway 27R and provided the clearance to land on that runway. No other aircraft were assigned to that runway. Aircraft landed without incident or further issue. After landing; we queried the tower controller regarding the situation. The controller told us they were informed of a shift change on approach.confusion between our flight and the controllers as to what runway is being assigned was the causal factor. The ambiguity came just prior to the radio switch from approach to tower. Constant vigilance in assuring pilots and controllers are on the same page is crucial. Clarification should immediately be requested if the message received doesn't explicitly match the message sent - for both parties. This is accomplished successfully the vast majority of times but the general threat is all too high unless both parties are on the same page 100% of the time.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-175 flight crew reported receiving contradictory expected runway information between Approach Control; and Tower Control. Flight crew found the late runway change confusing; and subsequently called the ATC facility for clarification.

Narrative: On arrival into ORD; my First Officer and I received notification that the expected arrival runway was 27L. A visual approach clearance to runway 27L was then given by approach control. After being switched to ORD tower; there was possible confusion on which runway we were supposed to be assigned. Tower cleared us to land on runway 27L then informed us to change to runway 27R and provided the clearance to land on that runway. No other aircraft were assigned to that runway. Aircraft landed without incident or further issue. After landing; we queried the tower controller regarding the situation. The controller told us they were informed of a shift change on approach.Confusion between our flight and the controllers as to what runway is being assigned was the causal factor. The ambiguity came just prior to the radio switch from approach to tower. Constant vigilance in assuring pilots and controllers are on the same page is crucial. Clarification should immediately be requested if the message received doesn't explicitly match the message sent - for both parties. This is accomplished successfully the vast majority of times but the general threat is all too high unless both parties are on the same page 100% of the time.

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	1509499
Time
Date	201801
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ORD.Tower
State Reference	IL
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	First Officer
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Emb-175 flight crew reported receiving contradictory expected runway information between approach control; and tower control. Flight crew found the late runway change confusing; and subsequently called the ATC facility for clarification.