Narrative:

Air carrier X was being vectored for approach to 31R, cleared to intercept localizer and contact tower. I called tower and reported approaching malde. Soon after, tower advised aircraft had flown through localizer, 'turn left,' then 'continue left turn, climb to 2000 ft, were taking you around.' tower thought we were cleared to runway 31L, we we're in fact flying to runway 31R. We went back to approach control, came around and completed a normal approach and landing on runway 31L. Looking at this incident with hindsight, I wonder if maybe our clearance had been runway 31L. I've been to jfk many times and from this direction, always land runway 31R. After setting the ATIS, we set up for runway 31R, and regardless what the controller actually said, I may have only heard runway '31R' because that's what I expected to hear. If the error was mine, tower could have picked it up when I called 'approaching malde.' however the FAF's on runways 31L and 31R at jfk have similar sounding names. Approaching on a fixs on parallel runways should be made as different as possible. One digit differences in the approach names such as 17 and 18 at dfw help to alleviate confusion. If it was a controller error and we were cleared to runway 31R, then the problem was communication between approach and tower. Pilots and controllers get set into routines. If a controller assigns a non-usual approach, runway, or procedure, perhaps an extra check should be made to insure the pilot understands.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP PARALLEL RWYS APCH'S ACR X MADE WRONG RWY APCH. PLTDEV.

Narrative: ACR X WAS BEING VECTORED FOR APCH TO 31R, CLRED TO INTERCEPT LOC AND CONTACT TWR. I CALLED TWR AND RPTED APCHING MALDE. SOON AFTER, TWR ADVISED ACFT HAD FLOWN THROUGH LOC, 'TURN L,' THEN 'CONTINUE L TURN, CLB TO 2000 FT, WERE TAKING YOU AROUND.' TWR THOUGHT WE WERE CLRED TO RWY 31L, WE WE'RE IN FACT FLYING TO RWY 31R. WE WENT BACK TO APCH CTL, CAME AROUND AND COMPLETED A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG ON RWY 31L. LOOKING AT THIS INCIDENT WITH HINDSIGHT, I WONDER IF MAYBE OUR CLRNC HAD BEEN RWY 31L. I'VE BEEN TO JFK MANY TIMES AND FROM THIS DIRECTION, ALWAYS LAND RWY 31R. AFTER SETTING THE ATIS, WE SET UP FOR RWY 31R, AND REGARDLESS WHAT THE CTLR ACTUALLY SAID, I MAY HAVE ONLY HEARD RWY '31R' BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I EXPECTED TO HEAR. IF THE ERROR WAS MINE, TWR COULD HAVE PICKED IT UP WHEN I CALLED 'APCHING MALDE.' HOWEVER THE FAF'S ON RWYS 31L AND 31R AT JFK HAVE SIMILAR SOUNDING NAMES. APCHING ON A FIXS ON PARALLEL RWYS SHOULD BE MADE AS DIFFERENT AS POSSIBLE. ONE DIGIT DIFFERENCES IN THE APCH NAMES SUCH AS 17 AND 18 AT DFW HELP TO ALLEVIATE CONFUSION. IF IT WAS A CTLR ERROR AND WE WERE CLRED TO RWY 31R, THEN THE PROBLEM WAS COM BTWN APCH AND TWR. PLTS AND CTLRS GET SET INTO ROUTINES. IF A CTLR ASSIGNS A NON-USUAL APCH, RWY, OR PROC, PERHAPS AN EXTRA CHK SHOULD BE MADE TO INSURE THE PLT UNDERSTANDS.

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.