Narrative:

On arrival to dfw, after early XA15 am 'get up' and almost 7 hours of flying time in 3 legs. Vectored to visual approach to runway 17L (or so we thought) lots going on. Approach control asked us for a cloud 'base report,' call the field, look for traffic landing on a west side runway, and switch to tower frequency (11 NM out). First officer flying 'chattering' a mi a min and making no attempt to 'sandwich' his remarks between radio calls from the controller or tower. Switched to tower frequency and was cleared to land. I thought he said on runway 17L, the usual runway. An aircraft was holding short of runway 17R, and I assumed he would be cleared into position shortly. Runway 17L was completely clear and no mention was ever made about it possibly being 'closed.' I'm still not certain if it was or not. At about 800 ft AGL tower asked if we were lined up on runway 17L. I replied that we were. Tower then stated (to our great surprise) that we were cleared to land on runway 17R! I do remember earlier acknowledging our clearance to land, but I do not recall if I stated the runway (I usually am very good about this), nor do I recall tower saying cleared to land on runway 17R. In fact, I am reasonably certain that approach control had cleared us for a visual to the left, as that is what we had briefed and had the ILS ('backup') tuned to. In any case, tower should have at least put some form of emphasis on the word 'right,' if he in fact cleared us so. It is very unusual at dfw to be cleared to land on runway 17R when aircraft are waiting to use it for departure. I asked tower 'do you want us to land on the right?' he said yes, but offered no reason. At this point the first officer stated that 'he could still do it.' to me it looked 'iffy' but I was willing to at least let him take a shot at it. This was, in hindsight, a bad decision. The remaining approach was not necessarily unsafe (somewhat akin to the 'river visual' at dca), but I did feel a bit 'uncomfortable,' as, I am sure, did our passenger. Technically a 'go around' was called for by company. Procedure, due to 'unstable approach below 500 ft AGL,' primarily due to bank angles needed to side step on such short notice. We touched down with about 9500 ft remaining and the landing was 'average' in quality. In the future, I will brief my first officer's to attempt to 'sandwich' their comments and confign requests between radio calls if at all possible, and I will direct a go around if such an event should ever occur again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG MAKES APCH TO WRONG RWY. SIDE STEPS BUT VERY UNSTABLE APCH.

Narrative: ON ARR TO DFW, AFTER EARLY XA15 AM 'GET UP' AND ALMOST 7 HRS OF FLYING TIME IN 3 LEGS. VECTORED TO VISUAL APCH TO RWY 17L (OR SO WE THOUGHT) LOTS GOING ON. APCH CTL ASKED US FOR A CLOUD 'BASE RPT,' CALL THE FIELD, LOOK FOR TFC LNDG ON A W SIDE RWY, AND SWITCH TO TWR FREQ (11 NM OUT). FO FLYING 'CHATTERING' A MI A MIN AND MAKING NO ATTEMPT TO 'SANDWICH' HIS REMARKS BTWN RADIO CALLS FROM THE CTLR OR TWR. SWITCHED TO TWR FREQ AND WAS CLRED TO LAND. I THOUGHT HE SAID ON RWY 17L, THE USUAL RWY. AN ACFT WAS HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 17R, AND I ASSUMED HE WOULD BE CLRED INTO POS SHORTLY. RWY 17L WAS COMPLETELY CLR AND NO MENTION WAS EVER MADE ABOUT IT POSSIBLY BEING 'CLOSED.' I'M STILL NOT CERTAIN IF IT WAS OR NOT. AT ABOUT 800 FT AGL TWR ASKED IF WE WERE LINED UP ON RWY 17L. I REPLIED THAT WE WERE. TWR THEN STATED (TO OUR GREAT SURPRISE) THAT WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 17R! I DO REMEMBER EARLIER ACKNOWLEDGING OUR CLRNC TO LAND, BUT I DO NOT RECALL IF I STATED THE RWY (I USUALLY AM VERY GOOD ABOUT THIS), NOR DO I RECALL TWR SAYING CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 17R. IN FACT, I AM REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT APCH CTL HAD CLRED US FOR A VISUAL TO THE L, AS THAT IS WHAT WE HAD BRIEFED AND HAD THE ILS ('BACKUP') TUNED TO. IN ANY CASE, TWR SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST PUT SOME FORM OF EMPHASIS ON THE WORD 'R,' IF HE IN FACT CLRED US SO. IT IS VERY UNUSUAL AT DFW TO BE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 17R WHEN ACFT ARE WAITING TO USE IT FOR DEP. I ASKED TWR 'DO YOU WANT US TO LAND ON THE R?' HE SAID YES, BUT OFFERED NO REASON. AT THIS POINT THE FO STATED THAT 'HE COULD STILL DO IT.' TO ME IT LOOKED 'IFFY' BUT I WAS WILLING TO AT LEAST LET HIM TAKE A SHOT AT IT. THIS WAS, IN HINDSIGHT, A BAD DECISION. THE REMAINING APCH WAS NOT NECESSARILY UNSAFE (SOMEWHAT AKIN TO THE 'RIVER VISUAL' AT DCA), BUT I DID FEEL A BIT 'UNCOMFORTABLE,' AS, I AM SURE, DID OUR PAX. TECHNICALLY A 'GAR' WAS CALLED FOR BY COMPANY. PROC, DUE TO 'UNSTABLE APCH BELOW 500 FT AGL,' PRIMARILY DUE TO BANK ANGLES NEEDED TO SIDE STEP ON SUCH SHORT NOTICE. WE TOUCHED DOWN WITH ABOUT 9500 FT REMAINING AND THE LNDG WAS 'AVERAGE' IN QUALITY. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL BRIEF MY FO'S TO ATTEMPT TO 'SANDWICH' THEIR COMMENTS AND CONFIGN REQUESTS BTWN RADIO CALLS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, AND I WILL DIRECT A GAR IF SUCH AN EVENT SHOULD EVER OCCUR AGAIN.

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.