Narrative:

Approach control issued ILS runway 28R and vectored us to final approach controller. He descended us to 3000 ft and gave us an intercept heading and issued approach clearance. I intercepted localizer and turned inbound. The controller said it appeared we were intercepting ILS runway 28R which we were. He indicated we should be on approach for ILS runway 28L. He they issued us the ILS frequency 111.7 for ILS runway 28R. We asked him if we should break off the approach and he issued us a clearance for ILS runway 28R then. We were being vectored for right downwind which is usual for ILS runway 28R, which gave us more verification for the ILS runway 28R. The final controller may have thought we were issued and expected runway 28L, which I do not believe we were. There were no conflicts. There were snow squalls over the area. I think maybe a misunderstanding between the 2 approach controllers developed as there was a hearback and readback from them every time. This thing happens and in a high traffic area with reduced visibility it is very important for the controller and pilot to get good communications on identify of the runway to land on. Maybe a procedure for the final controller to rename the ILS and get a final readback clearance from the pilot prior to the final intercept heading is given, and the final ILS clearance is issued. The pilot would then be given a second chance to correct any error that might exist.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A DC9-30 LINED UP WITH THE WRONG PARALLEL RWY RESULTING IN APCH CTLR INTERVENTION TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE LOC FREQ FOR THE ASSIGNED PARALLEL RWY TO WHICH THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE HEADED.

Narrative: APCH CTL ISSUED ILS RWY 28R AND VECTORED US TO FINAL APCH CTLR. HE DSNDED US TO 3000 FT AND GAVE US AN INTERCEPT HDG AND ISSUED APCH CLRNC. I INTERCEPTED LOC AND TURNED INBOUND. THE CTLR SAID IT APPEARED WE WERE INTERCEPTING ILS RWY 28R WHICH WE WERE. HE INDICATED WE SHOULD BE ON APCH FOR ILS RWY 28L. HE THEY ISSUED US THE ILS FREQ 111.7 FOR ILS RWY 28R. WE ASKED HIM IF WE SHOULD BREAK OFF THE APCH AND HE ISSUED US A CLRNC FOR ILS RWY 28R THEN. WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR R DOWNWIND WHICH IS USUAL FOR ILS RWY 28R, WHICH GAVE US MORE VERIFICATION FOR THE ILS RWY 28R. THE FINAL CTLR MAY HAVE THOUGHT WE WERE ISSUED AND EXPECTED RWY 28L, WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WERE. THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS. THERE WERE SNOW SQUALLS OVER THE AREA. I THINK MAYBE A MISUNDERSTANDING BTWN THE 2 APCH CTLRS DEVELOPED AS THERE WAS A HEARBACK AND READBACK FROM THEM EVERY TIME. THIS THING HAPPENS AND IN A HIGH TFC AREA WITH REDUCED VISIBILITY IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE CTLR AND PLT TO GET GOOD COMS ON IDENT OF THE RWY TO LAND ON. MAYBE A PROC FOR THE FINAL CTLR TO RENAME THE ILS AND GET A FINAL READBACK CLRNC FROM THE PLT PRIOR TO THE FINAL INTERCEPT HDG IS GIVEN, AND THE FINAL ILS CLRNC IS ISSUED. THE PLT WOULD THEN BE GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE TO CORRECT ANY ERROR THAT MIGHT EXIST.

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.