Narrative:

During the downwind portion of the approach (night VMC conditions) into lax 24R, the controller asked if we had visual contact with the airport. The captain (not flying) responded in the negative and stated his request for further vectors. The controller gave a base leg heading and a subsequent intercept heading for the final approach segment of 24R. She asked for visual confirmation of traffic landing on 25L, and the captain, looking outside for the traffic, responded in the affirmative. She said to maintain separation with that traffic and cleared for the approach to 24R. It was at this time that the first officer flew through the localizer of 24R. I queried the first officer as to which runway we had been cleared for and he responded 24R. The captain told him to turn right. He failed to do so and continued heading for 25R. By this time, the controller noticed our aircraft was lined up for 25R and gave a course correction back to the ILS for 24R. With continued verbal commands and encouragement to correct course immediately, from the captain and myself, the first officer finally complied. Remainder of flight was uneventful. Recommended action: 1. Confirm aircraft is on localizer or appropriately aligned with specified runway prior to issuing a visual clearance when conducting night parallel runway operations. 2. Increase approach and runway lighting intensities to equal levels for both runways 25 and 24 at lax. 3. The flight engineer should have clearly stated to the first officer 'you have flown through the localizer of 24R!' instead of asking which runway we had been cleared for.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HDG TRACK DEV IN A NIGHT OP SETS UP ACR WDB FOR A WRONG RWY APCH.

Narrative: DURING THE DOWNWIND PORTION OF THE APCH (NIGHT VMC CONDITIONS) INTO LAX 24R, THE CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ARPT. THE CAPT (NOT FLYING) RESPONDED IN THE NEGATIVE AND STATED HIS REQUEST FOR FURTHER VECTORS. THE CTLR GAVE A BASE LEG HDG AND A SUBSEQUENT INTERCEPT HDG FOR THE FINAL APCH SEGMENT OF 24R. SHE ASKED FOR VISUAL CONFIRMATION OF TFC LNDG ON 25L, AND THE CAPT, LOOKING OUTSIDE FOR THE TFC, RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SHE SAID TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION WITH THAT TFC AND CLRED FOR THE APCH TO 24R. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT THE FO FLEW THROUGH THE LOC OF 24R. I QUERIED THE FO AS TO WHICH RWY WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR AND HE RESPONDED 24R. THE CAPT TOLD HIM TO TURN R. HE FAILED TO DO SO AND CONTINUED HDG FOR 25R. BY THIS TIME, THE CTLR NOTICED OUR ACFT WAS LINED UP FOR 25R AND GAVE A COURSE CORRECTION BACK TO THE ILS FOR 24R. WITH CONTINUED VERBAL COMMANDS AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO CORRECT COURSE IMMEDIATELY, FROM THE CAPT AND MYSELF, THE FO FINALLY COMPLIED. REMAINDER OF FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. CONFIRM ACFT IS ON LOC OR APPROPRIATELY ALIGNED WITH SPECIFIED RWY PRIOR TO ISSUING A VISUAL CLRNC WHEN CONDUCTING NIGHT PARALLEL RWY OPS. 2. INCREASE APCH AND RWY LIGHTING INTENSITIES TO EQUAL LEVELS FOR BOTH RWYS 25 AND 24 AT LAX. 3. THE FLT ENGINEER SHOULD HAVE CLRLY STATED TO THE FO 'YOU HAVE FLOWN THROUGH THE LOC OF 24R!' INSTEAD OF ASKING WHICH RWY WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR.

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.