Narrative:

On initial contact with approach control we were told to expect the ILS 28R. The captain and I pulled out the approach plates and he briefed the approach. Approach control turned us dog-leg to final and cleared us for the ILS. When it seemed that I was taking too long T intercept the localizer I asked the controller to confirm that this was a dog-leg to ILS 28R approach. He said no, this was for ILS 28L, turn left to heading 250 degree and intercept the final. We turned back to course, returned our navs and made an uneventful landing. Factors that I believe contributed to this incident: the ILS runway 28R pg 21-5 dated feb, 1989 is very easily misread and poorly designed. Reference the approach plate, in the profile view there is no DME used to define zaiko, cofee or kerrs, they are defined off crossing radials of agc, but the profile view lists mileage to T/D under them. When you glance at the approach you come away with the impression that kerrs is defined at 13 DME, you must read the very last sentence of the second note to discover that 11.2 DME should be used. This method of presenting the approach is 'counter intuitive' and requires careful study of the approach plate. After we studied the approach plate and discussed it in depth we had a stronger mindset about which approach we were going to fly making it more difficult to make any last min changes. When the controller cleared us for the approach, he just said, cleared ILS 28 (we are still unsure which he cleared us for). If he had intended to change our landing runway he should have indicated this overfly by saying 'change to runway 28L.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MDT TRACK HEADING DEVIATION DURING RADAR VECTORS FOR RWY 28L ILS.

Narrative: ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH CTL WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT THE ILS 28R. THE CAPT AND I PULLED OUT THE APCH PLATES AND HE BRIEFED THE APCH. APCH CTL TURNED US DOG-LEG TO FINAL AND CLRED US FOR THE ILS. WHEN IT SEEMED THAT I WAS TAKING TOO LONG T INTERCEPT THE LOC I ASKED THE CTLR TO CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS A DOG-LEG TO ILS 28R APCH. HE SAID NO, THIS WAS FOR ILS 28L, TURN L TO HDG 250 DEG AND INTERCEPT THE FINAL. WE TURNED BACK TO COURSE, RETURNED OUR NAVS AND MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. FACTORS THAT I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCIDENT: THE ILS RWY 28R PG 21-5 DATED FEB, 1989 IS VERY EASILY MISREAD AND POORLY DESIGNED. REFERENCE THE APCH PLATE, IN THE PROFILE VIEW THERE IS NO DME USED TO DEFINE ZAIKO, COFEE OR KERRS, THEY ARE DEFINED OFF XING RADIALS OF AGC, BUT THE PROFILE VIEW LISTS MILEAGE TO T/D UNDER THEM. WHEN YOU GLANCE AT THE APCH YOU COME AWAY WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT KERRS IS DEFINED AT 13 DME, YOU MUST READ THE VERY LAST SENTENCE OF THE SEC NOTE TO DISCOVER THAT 11.2 DME SHOULD BE USED. THIS METHOD OF PRESENTING THE APCH IS 'COUNTER INTUITIVE' AND REQUIRES CAREFUL STUDY OF THE APCH PLATE. AFTER WE STUDIED THE APCH PLATE AND DISCUSSED IT IN DEPTH WE HAD A STRONGER MINDSET ABOUT WHICH APCH WE WERE GOING TO FLY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO MAKE ANY LAST MIN CHANGES. WHEN THE CTLR CLRED US FOR THE APCH, HE JUST SAID, CLRED ILS 28 (WE ARE STILL UNSURE WHICH HE CLRED US FOR). IF HE HAD INTENDED TO CHANGE OUR LNDG RWY HE SHOULD HAVE INDICATED THIS OVERFLY BY SAYING 'CHANGE TO RWY 28L.'

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.