Narrative:

Leg situation-sju. Initial contact with approach, no approach information given. ATIS information stated simultaneous approachs to runways at sju. Aircraft set-up and crew brief completed for runway 8 ILS arrival. ATC approach frequency extremely busy. ATC approach communications muffled, english difficult to understand. Aircraft was vectored to base leg to intercept localizer. No way or approach information given when clearance to intercept localizer was given. Entire approach was being flown by first officer utilizing autoplt. On intercept heading on right base at 1900 ft MSL, controller asked if we had the airport. We replied no. Controller then issued vector which resulted in aircraft being vectored away from the localizer to runway 8. Controller then told us the airport was at 3 O'clock position. Coincidentally, there was another airport at 3 O'clock position that has similar runway layout (fernando luis ribas dominicci). Captain suggested to copilot that this was san juan airport, but was not sure. First officer looked at airport, disconnected the autoplt, and started to descend. (Even though the first clue I had was that I thought we had passed abeam the airport (sju) on downwind 5-8 mins earlier, second clue was the picture on the navigation display showed the airport 10 NM further to the east, and the bigger clue of all -- that there were not any transport airline aircraft on the ground at this airport -- point not mentioned. Captain told first officer that he had not been to sju for 20 yrs. First officer had been into roosevelt roads NAS numerous times, but never into sju. At the same time, controller then issued vectors to what appeared to be back to a crosswind, then downwind for what we expected and was never told, to an ILS runway 8, as previously briefed and expected by the flight crew. Aircraft was again being flown by use of the autoplt and first officer (who now was determined to let the automation work to fly the ILS to runway 8 to short final). Again, while on vector to the runway 8 localizer (what we thought we were being vectored to) ATC again vectored us off to a different heading, repeating the previously above discussed vectors. The only difference with this sequence was that I was very attentive, in the fact that the other airport was not sju and I had no intention of landing or doing a visual approach to that airport. Captain insisted to ATC that we did not have the airport and requested a vector to the airport. ATC then cleared us for a visual approach to runway 8 after we told them we had the airport, then told us to contact tower. We contacted tower and started maneuvering for an extended 5 mi final to runway 8. Approximately 2 mins later, tower asked us if we were flying the 'lagoon visual to runway 8.' we said no, that we were in fact cleared for the visual to runway 8. They said 'fly the lagoon visual,' so we surmised (because neither of us had time to look at it) that they wanted us to the east of the lagoon. That's what we did, and then maneuvered for a left base to runway 8 and landed uneventfully. After block-in, the captain contacted ATC. Bottom line: ATC assumed that we were going to intercept localizer runway 10 (not runway 8) and that is why we were never allowed to intercept localizer runway 08. ATC reviewed tapes and acknowledged that they never advised us of the approach to be flown.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SJU VECTORS A320 FLC TOWARDS RWY 10 FINAL APCH COURSE, BUT THE FLC ARE EXPECTING RWY 8. CONFUSION RESOLVED ON SECOND APCH. PIC CALLED ATC.

Narrative: LEG SIT-SJU. INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH, NO APCH INFO GIVEN. ATIS INFO STATED SIMULTANEOUS APCHS TO RWYS AT SJU. ACFT SET-UP AND CREW BRIEF COMPLETED FOR RWY 8 ILS ARR. ATC APCH FREQ EXTREMELY BUSY. ATC APCH COMS MUFFLED, ENGLISH DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. ACFT WAS VECTORED TO BASE LEG TO INTERCEPT LOC. NO WAY OR APCH INFO GIVEN WHEN CLRNC TO INTERCEPT LOC WAS GIVEN. ENTIRE APCH WAS BEING FLOWN BY FO UTILIZING AUTOPLT. ON INTERCEPT HDG ON R BASE AT 1900 FT MSL, CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT. WE REPLIED NO. CTLR THEN ISSUED VECTOR WHICH RESULTED IN ACFT BEING VECTORED AWAY FROM THE LOC TO RWY 8. CTLR THEN TOLD US THE ARPT WAS AT 3 O'CLOCK POS. COINCIDENTALLY, THERE WAS ANOTHER ARPT AT 3 O'CLOCK POS THAT HAS SIMILAR RWY LAYOUT (FERNANDO LUIS RIBAS DOMINICCI). CAPT SUGGESTED TO COPLT THAT THIS WAS SAN JUAN ARPT, BUT WAS NOT SURE. FO LOOKED AT ARPT, DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT, AND STARTED TO DSND. (EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST CLUE I HAD WAS THAT I THOUGHT WE HAD PASSED ABEAM THE ARPT (SJU) ON DOWNWIND 5-8 MINS EARLIER, SECOND CLUE WAS THE PICTURE ON THE NAV DISPLAY SHOWED THE ARPT 10 NM FURTHER TO THE E, AND THE BIGGER CLUE OF ALL -- THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY TRANSPORT AIRLINE ACFT ON THE GND AT THIS ARPT -- POINT NOT MENTIONED. CAPT TOLD FO THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN TO SJU FOR 20 YRS. FO HAD BEEN INTO ROOSEVELT ROADS NAS NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT NEVER INTO SJU. AT THE SAME TIME, CTLR THEN ISSUED VECTORS TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE BACK TO A XWIND, THEN DOWNWIND FOR WHAT WE EXPECTED AND WAS NEVER TOLD, TO AN ILS RWY 8, AS PREVIOUSLY BRIEFED AND EXPECTED BY THE FLC. ACFT WAS AGAIN BEING FLOWN BY USE OF THE AUTOPLT AND FO (WHO NOW WAS DETERMINED TO LET THE AUTOMATION WORK TO FLY THE ILS TO RWY 8 TO SHORT FINAL). AGAIN, WHILE ON VECTOR TO THE RWY 8 LOC (WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE BEING VECTORED TO) ATC AGAIN VECTORED US OFF TO A DIFFERENT HDG, REPEATING THE PREVIOUSLY ABOVE DISCUSSED VECTORS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH THIS SEQUENCE WAS THAT I WAS VERY ATTENTIVE, IN THE FACT THAT THE OTHER ARPT WAS NOT SJU AND I HAD NO INTENTION OF LNDG OR DOING A VISUAL APCH TO THAT ARPT. CAPT INSISTED TO ATC THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE ARPT AND REQUESTED A VECTOR TO THE ARPT. ATC THEN CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 8 AFTER WE TOLD THEM WE HAD THE ARPT, THEN TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR. WE CONTACTED TWR AND STARTED MANEUVERING FOR AN EXTENDED 5 MI FINAL TO RWY 8. APPROX 2 MINS LATER, TWR ASKED US IF WE WERE FLYING THE 'LAGOON VISUAL TO RWY 8.' WE SAID NO, THAT WE WERE IN FACT CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 8. THEY SAID 'FLY THE LAGOON VISUAL,' SO WE SURMISED (BECAUSE NEITHER OF US HAD TIME TO LOOK AT IT) THAT THEY WANTED US TO THE E OF THE LAGOON. THAT'S WHAT WE DID, AND THEN MANEUVERED FOR A L BASE TO RWY 8 AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER BLOCK-IN, THE CAPT CONTACTED ATC. BOTTOM LINE: ATC ASSUMED THAT WE WERE GOING TO INTERCEPT LOC RWY 10 (NOT RWY 8) AND THAT IS WHY WE WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO INTERCEPT LOC RWY 08. ATC REVIEWED TAPES AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY NEVER ADVISED US OF THE APCH TO BE FLOWN.

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.