Narrative:

On approach at sju, cleared by approach control to intercept localizer for runway 10, maintain 3000 ft. Approaching the OM I queried approach if we were cleared for the approach since we were quite high. Controller replied 'negative, maintain 3000 ft.' within 30 seconds, controller asked if we had the airport, I replied in the affirmative. He cleared us for a visual runway 10 and told us to contact tower. When I checked in with tower on final for runway 10 he said to expect clearance to land on short final. During this time the captain and I were very busy trying to configure the aircraft and get down to the GS. By 1000 ft the aircraft was configured and on the GS. During this time numerous radio transmissions were given by tower to other commuter aircraft for takeoff and runway clearance. At approximately 500-800 ft AGL tower issued clearance to land to us. Another commuter aircraft was then given clearance to takeoff on runway 10. Both captain and first officer were focused on this aircraft to insure that he would be airborne prior to our landing. He became airborne by the time we reached 200 ft AGL so we continued and landed. On roll out the tower controller asked if we were aware that we were cleared to land on runway 8! I responded that on short final I heard clearance for runway 10 and read back runway 10. He said initially we were cleared for runway 10 but when he gave final clearance it was for runway 8, but no problem just a communication fowl up. This approach was non standard from approach control on. The 'expect clearance on short final' should have been a clue, and if he did give clearance to runway 8 he never said 'change clearance to land on runway 8' and get an acknowledgement, additionally I heard what I wanted to hear. When another aircraft was on the runway I should have reconfirmed our clearance. A very valuable lesson learned.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WRONG RWY LNDG.

Narrative: ON APCH AT SJU, CLRED BY APCH CTL TO INTERCEPT LOC FOR RWY 10, MAINTAIN 3000 FT. APCHING THE OM I QUERIED APCH IF WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH SINCE WE WERE QUITE HIGH. CTLR REPLIED 'NEGATIVE, MAINTAIN 3000 FT.' WITHIN 30 SECONDS, CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT, I REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. HE CLRED US FOR A VISUAL RWY 10 AND TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR. WHEN I CHKED IN WITH TWR ON FINAL FOR RWY 10 HE SAID TO EXPECT CLRNC TO LAND ON SHORT FINAL. DURING THIS TIME THE CAPT AND I WERE VERY BUSY TRYING TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT AND GET DOWN TO THE GS. BY 1000 FT THE ACFT WAS CONFIGURED AND ON THE GS. DURING THIS TIME NUMEROUS RADIO TRANSMISSIONS WERE GIVEN BY TWR TO OTHER COMMUTER ACFT FOR TKOF AND RWY CLRNC. AT APPROX 500-800 FT AGL TWR ISSUED CLRNC TO LAND TO US. ANOTHER COMMUTER ACFT WAS THEN GIVEN CLRNC TO TKOF ON RWY 10. BOTH CAPT AND FO WERE FOCUSED ON THIS ACFT TO INSURE THAT HE WOULD BE AIRBORNE PRIOR TO OUR LNDG. HE BECAME AIRBORNE BY THE TIME WE REACHED 200 FT AGL SO WE CONTINUED AND LANDED. ON ROLL OUT THE TWR CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE AWARE THAT WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 8! I RESPONDED THAT ON SHORT FINAL I HEARD CLRNC FOR RWY 10 AND READ BACK RWY 10. HE SAID INITIALLY WE WERE CLRED FOR RWY 10 BUT WHEN HE GAVE FINAL CLRNC IT WAS FOR RWY 8, BUT NO PROBLEM JUST A COM FOWL UP. THIS APCH WAS NON STANDARD FROM APCH CTL ON. THE 'EXPECT CLRNC ON SHORT FINAL' SHOULD HAVE BEEN A CLUE, AND IF HE DID GIVE CLRNC TO RWY 8 HE NEVER SAID 'CHANGE CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 8' AND GET AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, ADDITIONALLY I HEARD WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. WHEN ANOTHER ACFT WAS ON THE RWY I SHOULD HAVE RECONFIRMED OUR CLRNC. A VERY VALUABLE LESSON LEARNED.

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.