Narrative:

We were approaching chicago from the southwest. ATIS reported scattered to broken clouds with visibility 6 NM. Runway 9R and runway 4R were in use. We were anticipating runway 4R. However, upon contact with approach control, we were told to expect vectors to runway 9R. At no time after this were we told of a runway change. Approach control was very busy. We were given several headings, altitudes, and speeds. We were on a 290 degree heading (assuming a downwind for runway 9R) with our radios tuned for the ILS to runway 9R. At this time approach gave us an approach clearance with about 6 pieces of information, i.e., 'turn heading 020 degrees, maintain 3000 ft till established, cleared approach, maintain 180 KTS till ..., contact tower at XXX, frequency YYY. We turned towards 020 degrees and our course showed an overshoot so we continued on towards 090 degrees. At this time approach queried our position relative to runway 4R. We were east of the runway 4R centerline. Approach gave us a turn back at which time we saw the runway. I feel several factors led to the misunderstanding. We were not informed of a change to vectors for runway 4R. The controller was very busy and not allowing any time for feedback. I was wondering why other aircraft on frequency were going to runway 4R and we were told runway 9R. However, not knowing their traffic flow, not having a chance to ask, and assuming they had their reasons, I continued on. When given the 020 degree heading to intercept, again I was curious of the large intercept. However, with the extensive approach clearance issued, workload of the controller, closeness to the airport, and cockpit workload, there was no chance to correct the error until already east of the runway 4R centerline. The WX was fairly good which allowed us to see the runway. Otherwise things could have progressed to a worse situation. I would like to see the controllers slow down, allowing them a chance to hear readbacks and to hear inquiries. It would help for the controller to use 2 xmissions if speeds and frequencys are in the approach clearance. This would allow these pilots 1 last chance to hear the approach clearance correctly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN MLG ACR ACFT INADVERTENTLY OVERSHOT TURN TO FINAL DUE TO THE CTLR WORK AND FREQ CONGESTION.

Narrative: WE WERE APCHING CHICAGO FROM THE SW. ATIS RPTED SCATTERED TO BROKEN CLOUDS WITH VISIBILITY 6 NM. RWY 9R AND RWY 4R WERE IN USE. WE WERE ANTICIPATING RWY 4R. HOWEVER, UPON CONTACT WITH APCH CTL, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT VECTORS TO RWY 9R. AT NO TIME AFTER THIS WERE WE TOLD OF A RWY CHANGE. APCH CTL WAS VERY BUSY. WE WERE GIVEN SEVERAL HDGS, ALTS, AND SPDS. WE WERE ON A 290 DEG HDG (ASSUMING A DOWNWIND FOR RWY 9R) WITH OUR RADIOS TUNED FOR THE ILS TO RWY 9R. AT THIS TIME APCH GAVE US AN APCH CLRNC WITH ABOUT 6 PIECES OF INFO, I.E., 'TURN HDG 020 DEGS, MAINTAIN 3000 FT TILL ESTABLISHED, CLRED APCH, MAINTAIN 180 KTS TILL ..., CONTACT TWR AT XXX, FREQ YYY. WE TURNED TOWARDS 020 DEGS AND OUR COURSE SHOWED AN OVERSHOOT SO WE CONTINUED ON TOWARDS 090 DEGS. AT THIS TIME APCH QUERIED OUR POS RELATIVE TO RWY 4R. WE WERE E OF THE RWY 4R CTRLINE. APCH GAVE US A TURN BACK AT WHICH TIME WE SAW THE RWY. I FEEL SEVERAL FACTORS LED TO THE MISUNDERSTANDING. WE WERE NOT INFORMED OF A CHANGE TO VECTORS FOR RWY 4R. THE CTLR WAS VERY BUSY AND NOT ALLOWING ANY TIME FOR FEEDBACK. I WAS WONDERING WHY OTHER ACFT ON FREQ WERE GOING TO RWY 4R AND WE WERE TOLD RWY 9R. HOWEVER, NOT KNOWING THEIR TFC FLOW, NOT HAVING A CHANCE TO ASK, AND ASSUMING THEY HAD THEIR REASONS, I CONTINUED ON. WHEN GIVEN THE 020 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT, AGAIN I WAS CURIOUS OF THE LARGE INTERCEPT. HOWEVER, WITH THE EXTENSIVE APCH CLRNC ISSUED, WORKLOAD OF THE CTLR, CLOSENESS TO THE ARPT, AND COCKPIT WORKLOAD, THERE WAS NO CHANCE TO CORRECT THE ERROR UNTIL ALREADY E OF THE RWY 4R CTRLINE. THE WX WAS FAIRLY GOOD WHICH ALLOWED US TO SEE THE RWY. OTHERWISE THINGS COULD HAVE PROGRESSED TO A WORSE SIT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CTLRS SLOW DOWN, ALLOWING THEM A CHANCE TO HEAR READBACKS AND TO HEAR INQUIRIES. IT WOULD HELP FOR THE CTLR TO USE 2 XMISSIONS IF SPDS AND FREQS ARE IN THE APCH CLRNC. THIS WOULD ALLOW THESE PLTS 1 LAST CHANCE TO HEAR THE APCH CLRNC CORRECTLY.

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.