Narrative:

I was the captain and the first officer was flying the large transport and an omc was on the jump seat. All 4 pilots plus 2 passenger who were listening on the audio system concur with the following version. Approach control cleared us to an intermediate altitude and said to expect ILS 17 at mco. The next and final controller cleared us for a 150 degree heading and 3000', intercept the localizer, cleared for ILS 18R. We commented in the cockpit about the late change, but rogered 18R and got out the approach chart. We did not question the controller because the ATIS was reporting ILS to both runways and 18R gave us a shorter taxi. I had not flown into mco in over 3 yrs and the first officer had been there only once recently and had commented before we contacted approach that they had landed on 17 that time. After intercepting localizer and starting to track inbound, the controller cleared us to cross a fix at 2500' that was not on the approach chart. I said we did not see the fix on our chart and he replied, 'it is on the chart for 17,' and I said 'we were cleared the ILS 18R.' the second officer was monitoring the approach and had his charts out and said, 'it is on the 17 approach.' we realized at this time that there was a problem, but it was not until I asked, 'approach, are we cleared to ILS 18R?' that the controller seemed to realize what was happening. The controller then cleared another aircraft to a westerly heading and to maintain an altitude. He cleared us to a 150 degree heading maintain 3000', 'I'll take you out and bring you back in.' since we were still 10 mi out and on G/south and had initially been prepared for the approach I said, 'we can make the approach to 17. Are we cleared to the ILS to 17?' the controller replied, 'cleared the ILS 17,' at which time we were intercepting the localizer and continued the ILS 17 to an uneventful landing. When I called approach on the phone after deplaning the supervisor said that 2 people were monitoring that position and had not heard the discrepancy. My guess as to what happened is: controller training was in progress, hence the dual monitoring of the position. Why the slip of the tongue change to 18R I don't know, but this controller was handling approachs to both runways, and I probably should have done more than read back the clearance. We had not heard another aircraft on frequency until we were given divergent headings. I suspect we were rapidly overtaking the other aircraft on the localizer. The supervisor said he would review the tapes and discuss it with the controller, but saw no reason to take any formal action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC MIXUP REGARDING LNDG. RWY CHANGED LATE.

Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT AND THE F/O WAS FLYING THE LGT AND AN OMC WAS ON THE JUMP SEAT. ALL 4 PLTS PLUS 2 PAX WHO WERE LISTENING ON THE AUDIO SYS CONCUR WITH THE FOLLOWING VERSION. APCH CTL CLRED US TO AN INTERMEDIATE ALT AND SAID TO EXPECT ILS 17 AT MCO. THE NEXT AND FINAL CTLR CLRED US FOR A 150 DEG HDG AND 3000', INTERCEPT THE LOC, CLRED FOR ILS 18R. WE COMMENTED IN THE COCKPIT ABOUT THE LATE CHANGE, BUT ROGERED 18R AND GOT OUT THE APCH CHART. WE DID NOT QUESTION THE CTLR BECAUSE THE ATIS WAS RPTING ILS TO BOTH RWYS AND 18R GAVE US A SHORTER TAXI. I HAD NOT FLOWN INTO MCO IN OVER 3 YRS AND THE F/O HAD BEEN THERE ONLY ONCE RECENTLY AND HAD COMMENTED BEFORE WE CONTACTED APCH THAT THEY HAD LANDED ON 17 THAT TIME. AFTER INTERCEPTING LOC AND STARTING TO TRACK INBND, THE CTLR CLRED US TO CROSS A FIX AT 2500' THAT WAS NOT ON THE APCH CHART. I SAID WE DID NOT SEE THE FIX ON OUR CHART AND HE REPLIED, 'IT IS ON THE CHART FOR 17,' AND I SAID 'WE WERE CLRED THE ILS 18R.' THE S/O WAS MONITORING THE APCH AND HAD HIS CHARTS OUT AND SAID, 'IT IS ON THE 17 APCH.' WE REALIZED AT THIS TIME THAT THERE WAS A PROB, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL I ASKED, 'APCH, ARE WE CLRED TO ILS 18R?' THAT THE CTLR SEEMED TO REALIZE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. THE CTLR THEN CLRED ANOTHER ACFT TO A WESTERLY HDG AND TO MAINTAIN AN ALT. HE CLRED US TO A 150 DEG HDG MAINTAIN 3000', 'I'LL TAKE YOU OUT AND BRING YOU BACK IN.' SINCE WE WERE STILL 10 MI OUT AND ON G/S AND HAD INITIALLY BEEN PREPARED FOR THE APCH I SAID, 'WE CAN MAKE THE APCH TO 17. ARE WE CLRED TO THE ILS TO 17?' THE CTLR REPLIED, 'CLRED THE ILS 17,' AT WHICH TIME WE WERE INTERCEPTING THE LOC AND CONTINUED THE ILS 17 TO AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. WHEN I CALLED APCH ON THE PHONE AFTER DEPLANING THE SUPVR SAID THAT 2 PEOPLE WERE MONITORING THAT POS AND HAD NOT HEARD THE DISCREPANCY. MY GUESS AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IS: CTLR TRNING WAS IN PROGRESS, HENCE THE DUAL MONITORING OF THE POS. WHY THE SLIP OF THE TONGUE CHANGE TO 18R I DON'T KNOW, BUT THIS CTLR WAS HANDLING APCHS TO BOTH RWYS, AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE THAN READ BACK THE CLRNC. WE HAD NOT HEARD ANOTHER ACFT ON FREQ UNTIL WE WERE GIVEN DIVERGENT HDGS. I SUSPECT WE WERE RAPIDLY OVERTAKING THE OTHER ACFT ON THE LOC. THE SUPVR SAID HE WOULD REVIEW THE TAPES AND DISCUSS IT WITH THE CTLR, BUT SAW NO REASON TO TAKE ANY FORMAL ACTION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.