Narrative:

First I picked up the ATIS and wrote down 27L as the landing runway. Then as we spoke to approach and they pointed out traffic and we said yes, we have him in visual contact, they then cleared us for what we thought was runway 27R, which was the standard runway for landing at this airport, not runway 27L which the ATIS said. Then at about 200 ft and getting set to land on the wrong runway (27R) the tower said to go around. At that point we went around. The runway was clear and no other traffic in the area. I guess what happened was that we were so used to landing on one runway and not really listening to what was being said but what we wanted to hear. I feel that when a change from the standard is in use that all involved should double-check that this change from normal is clearly understood and being followed and not waiting until 200 ft before landing. Supplemental information from acn 265309: the situation could have been corrected prior to the go around. Either pilot should have checked the CDI, but because the WX was so good, we just lined up visually and flew the GS. Kphl is the only airport I can recall without digging through my approach plates that has the same frequency for parallel runways. The idents are different, but both frequency and inbound course are identical. If the frequencys were different, maybe we would have caught our error sooner.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG LINES UP WITH WRONG RWY ON APCH.

Narrative: FIRST I PICKED UP THE ATIS AND WROTE DOWN 27L AS THE LNDG RWY. THEN AS WE SPOKE TO APCH AND THEY POINTED OUT TFC AND WE SAID YES, WE HAVE HIM IN VISUAL CONTACT, THEY THEN CLRED US FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS RWY 27R, WHICH WAS THE STANDARD RWY FOR LNDG AT THIS ARPT, NOT RWY 27L WHICH THE ATIS SAID. THEN AT ABOUT 200 FT AND GETTING SET TO LAND ON THE WRONG RWY (27R) THE TWR SAID TO GAR. AT THAT POINT WE WENT AROUND. THE RWY WAS CLR AND NO OTHER TFC IN THE AREA. I GUESS WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT WE WERE SO USED TO LNDG ON ONE RWY AND NOT REALLY LISTENING TO WHAT WAS BEING SAID BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO HEAR. I FEEL THAT WHEN A CHANGE FROM THE STANDARD IS IN USE THAT ALL INVOLVED SHOULD DOUBLE-CHK THAT THIS CHANGE FROM NORMAL IS CLRLY UNDERSTOOD AND BEING FOLLOWED AND NOT WAITING UNTIL 200 FT BEFORE LNDG. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 265309: THE SIT COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED PRIOR TO THE GAR. EITHER PLT SHOULD HAVE CHKED THE CDI, BUT BECAUSE THE WX WAS SO GOOD, WE JUST LINED UP VISUALLY AND FLEW THE GS. KPHL IS THE ONLY ARPT I CAN RECALL WITHOUT DIGGING THROUGH MY APCH PLATES THAT HAS THE SAME FREQ FOR PARALLEL RWYS. THE IDENTS ARE DIFFERENT, BUT BOTH FREQ AND INBOUND COURSE ARE IDENTICAL. IF THE FREQS WERE DIFFERENT, MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE CAUGHT OUR ERROR SOONER.

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.