Narrative:

On vectors for visual approach to 18R (3;000 ft. MSL); we heard ATC provide the 787 ahead of us traffic advisories near the final approach course for the runway. This advisory was '[carrier] -- heavy; traffic two to three o'clock; 2;500; type unknown; altitude unverified' as we approached the final course moments later; we received instructions 'aircraft X fly heading 130; intercept the localizer; cleared for the visual 18R; contact tower now on 124.15'. Immediately after reading back the clearance; regional approach came back to us and said; 'aircraft X; never mind stay with me; fly heading 130; traffic 1-2 o'clock 2 miles; 3;000'; I called back and said 'looking; just to be sure are we still cleared to intercept the localizer?' regional departure said; 'negative; approach clearance cancelled; that traffic is headed right through the localizer; fly heading 130; I'm gonna take you through the localizer to avoid him; there is nobody else approaching the other side (17L; 17C or 17L) so you're clear.' we got the traffic in sight and I called it to ATC. Regional approach controller then came back with; 'roger; maintain visual separation from that traffic; does it look like he is at three thousand?' I answered in the affirmative; 'sure does;' just as we received a TA. Regional approach then said; 'yea; I'm not talking to him; so he's violating the bravo airspace.' we were then given a heading of 150 around the traffic and cleared for the visual to 18R and told to contact the tower. As we positioned our aircraft for the approach; the pilot flying aligned with the inside runway. After confirming this misalignment with the localizer back up; showing approximately 2 degrees left of course; I called 'hey do you know we are lined up with the left;' to the PF (pilot flying). He responded positively; re-aligned and we landed without further incident. ATC had mentioned that the aircraft was not on frequency and was violating bravo airspace. VMC conditions may have led to complacency by the GA pilot. I believe that biggest contributing factor to the incorrect runway alignment was the PF's focus being pulled outside to monitor traffic and maintain visual separation. When we were finally cleared again for the approach; there was a lot to manage in getting the aircraft configured; aligned and set up for the landing. After thinking about it since the incident; we maybe should have asked for the other runway or made the safe decision to climb and come back around once the conflicting aircraft was clear of the airspace. We could have even asked for 17L or 17C as it was perfectly visual conditions; but even that would have required a re-brief.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ First Officer reported vectors around a Class Bravo violator while on a visual approach led to lining up for the wrong runway.

Narrative: On vectors for visual approach to 18R (3;000 ft. MSL); we heard ATC provide the 787 ahead of us traffic advisories near the final approach course for the runway. This advisory was '[Carrier] -- heavy; traffic two to three o'clock; 2;500; type unknown; altitude unverified' as we approached the final course moments later; we received instructions 'Aircraft X fly heading 130; Intercept the localizer; cleared for the visual 18R; contact Tower now on 124.15'. Immediately after reading back the clearance; Regional Approach came back to us and said; 'Aircraft X; never mind stay with me; fly heading 130; traffic 1-2 o'clock 2 miles; 3;000'; I called back and said 'Looking; just to be sure are we still cleared to intercept the localizer?' Regional departure said; 'Negative; approach clearance cancelled; that traffic is headed right through the localizer; fly heading 130; I'm gonna take you through the localizer to avoid him; there is nobody else approaching the other side (17L; 17C or 17L) so you're clear.' We got the traffic in sight and I called it to ATC. Regional Approach controller then came back with; 'Roger; maintain visual separation from that traffic; does it look like he is at three thousand?' I answered in the affirmative; 'Sure does;' just as we received a TA. Regional Approach then said; 'Yea; I'm not talking to him; so he's violating the Bravo Airspace.' We were then given a heading of 150 around the traffic and cleared for the visual to 18R and told to contact the Tower. As we positioned our aircraft for the approach; the Pilot Flying aligned with the inside runway. After confirming this misalignment with the Localizer back up; showing approximately 2 degrees left of course; I called 'Hey do you know we are lined up with the left;' to the PF (Pilot Flying). He responded positively; re-aligned and we landed without further incident. ATC had mentioned that the aircraft was not on frequency and was violating Bravo Airspace. VMC conditions may have led to complacency by the GA pilot. I believe that biggest contributing factor to the incorrect runway alignment was the PF's focus being pulled outside to monitor traffic and maintain visual separation. When we were finally cleared again for the approach; there was a lot to manage in getting the aircraft configured; aligned and set up for the landing. After thinking about it since the incident; we maybe should have asked for the other runway or made the safe decision to climb and come back around once the conflicting aircraft was clear of the airspace. We could have even asked for 17L or 17C as it was perfectly visual conditions; but even that would have required a re-brief.

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.