Narrative:

On vectors for an approach to runway 35R, we received a late turn to intercept the final approach course. We went through the localizer during the initial vector and were given a turn to reintercept the course (020 degrees). The approach controller then asked us to call the airport as soon as we picked it up for a visual. At approximately 2000 ft we were clear and had the airport in sight. At this point we were over the centerline for runway 35L, the controller then stated since we were already there that we were cleared for the visual for runway 35C. At this point we were close to the runway, with little to no time for a landing clearance. I attempted to get a clearance (2 times) but there was too much talk on the radio. I thought at this point landing would be better than a go around. (The runway was clear along with associated taxies.) upon taxi we held short of runway 35L as normal. Tower then had a hard time figuring out who and where we were. Maybe the tower for runway 35R received our slip. The tower controller was nice and apologized and we taxied in uneventful. My concerns -- the vector to intercept and the correction vector were so bad we ended up in the wrong area. Thankfully there was no traffic parallel with us. If we had chosen to go around, ATC radio congestion and the possibility of no one knowing where we were, and possible departing traffic conflicts.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN EMBRAER EMB120 WAS VECTORED THROUGH THE FINAL LOC COURSE AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO THE OTHER PARALLEL RWY. THEY ATTEMPTED BUT COULD NOT GET LNDG CLRNC DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION.

Narrative: ON VECTORS FOR AN APCH TO RWY 35R, WE RECEIVED A LATE TURN TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE. WE WENT THROUGH THE LOC DURING THE INITIAL VECTOR AND WERE GIVEN A TURN TO REINTERCEPT THE COURSE (020 DEGS). THE APCH CTLR THEN ASKED US TO CALL THE ARPT AS SOON AS WE PICKED IT UP FOR A VISUAL. AT APPROX 2000 FT WE WERE CLR AND HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. AT THIS POINT WE WERE OVER THE CTRLINE FOR RWY 35L, THE CTLR THEN STATED SINCE WE WERE ALREADY THERE THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL FOR RWY 35C. AT THIS POINT WE WERE CLOSE TO THE RWY, WITH LITTLE TO NO TIME FOR A LNDG CLRNC. I ATTEMPTED TO GET A CLRNC (2 TIMES) BUT THERE WAS TOO MUCH TALK ON THE RADIO. I THOUGHT AT THIS POINT LNDG WOULD BE BETTER THAN A GAR. (THE RWY WAS CLR ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED TAXIES.) UPON TAXI WE HELD SHORT OF RWY 35L AS NORMAL. TWR THEN HAD A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT WHO AND WHERE WE WERE. MAYBE THE TWR FOR RWY 35R RECEIVED OUR SLIP. THE TWR CTLR WAS NICE AND APOLOGIZED AND WE TAXIED IN UNEVENTFUL. MY CONCERNS -- THE VECTOR TO INTERCEPT AND THE CORRECTION VECTOR WERE SO BAD WE ENDED UP IN THE WRONG AREA. THANKFULLY THERE WAS NO TFC PARALLEL WITH US. IF WE HAD CHOSEN TO GAR, ATC RADIO CONGESTION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF NO ONE KNOWING WHERE WE WERE, AND POSSIBLE DEPARTING TFC CONFLICTS.

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.