Narrative:

Upon arrival in the abq area from the east the current ATIS told us the approach in use at abq was a visual to runway 8. We crossed the mountains southeast of the airport at 12000 ft, descending to 9000 ft, intending to land on runway 8, when abq approach instructed us to fly a 360 degree heading. Since this was a strange vector for runway 8 we asked abq approach what runway they intended us to use. Approach informed us that we were being vectored for a landing on runway 26 and called out our traffic for that runway. We were now 10 NM southeast of the runway with only a descent to 9000 ft. The captain and flight engineer at this time were looking for our traffic while I was trying to get the aircraft set up for runway 26 and looking for the approach plate for that runway. Our next call from approach was check our altitude. Due to the workload, we were not closely monitoring the altimeter during the descent and the aircraft was not approaching 8000 ft. Approach control apparently was not too worried about our altitude, he told us to descend and maintain 8000 ft. As it was, we were barely able to get the airplane down from that altitude with the distance remaining to the runway. This situation could have easily been prevented if abq approach control had informed us of the runway change further out from the runway/airport. This would have allowed us to make the appropriate altitude and airspeed changes for a safe and uneventful approach and landing. As it was we had to use other than normal approach altitudes, and had an altitude deviation, to get the aircraft to the runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV ALT OVERSHOT IN DSCNT.

Narrative: UPON ARR IN THE ABQ AREA FROM THE E THE CURRENT ATIS TOLD US THE APCH IN USE AT ABQ WAS A VISUAL TO RWY 8. WE CROSSED THE MOUNTAINS SE OF THE ARPT AT 12000 FT, DSNDING TO 9000 FT, INTENDING TO LAND ON RWY 8, WHEN ABQ APCH INSTRUCTED US TO FLY A 360 DEG HDG. SINCE THIS WAS A STRANGE VECTOR FOR RWY 8 WE ASKED ABQ APCH WHAT RWY THEY INTENDED US TO USE. APCH INFORMED US THAT WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR A LNDG ON RWY 26 AND CALLED OUT OUR TFC FOR THAT RWY. WE WERE NOW 10 NM SE OF THE RWY WITH ONLY A DSCNT TO 9000 FT. THE CAPT AND FE AT THIS TIME WERE LOOKING FOR OUR TFC WHILE I WAS TRYING TO GET THE ACFT SET UP FOR RWY 26 AND LOOKING FOR THE APCH PLATE FOR THAT RWY. OUR NEXT CALL FROM APCH WAS CHK OUR ALT. DUE TO THE WORKLOAD, WE WERE NOT CLOSELY MONITORING THE ALTIMETER DURING THE DSCNT AND THE ACFT WAS NOT APCHING 8000 FT. APCH CTL APPARENTLY WAS NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT OUR ALT, HE TOLD US TO DSND AND MAINTAIN 8000 FT. AS IT WAS, WE WERE BARELY ABLE TO GET THE AIRPLANE DOWN FROM THAT ALT WITH THE DISTANCE REMAINING TO THE RWY. THIS SIT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN PREVENTED IF ABQ APCH CTL HAD INFORMED US OF THE RWY CHANGE FURTHER OUT FROM THE RWY/ARPT. THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE ALT AND AIRSPD CHANGES FOR A SAFE AND UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG. AS IT WAS WE HAD TO USE OTHER THAN NORMAL APCH ALTS, AND HAD AN ALTDEV, TO GET THE ACFT TO THE RWY.

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.