Narrative:

Hnl to lax. Arrival in the terminal control environment, approximately XA10. We received several changes to different expected runways and changes in routing to those runways. Socal approach apologized twice for the confusion prior to our downwind arrival leg in a r-hand pattern to westerly landing runways at lax. Past the airport abeam at 6000 ft MSL, we were cleared to 3000 ft MSL and a visual approach to runway 25R. The captain started a descending turn to set up for the assigned runway. On base, approach control told us to switch to the south complex tower frequency. On our turn to final for runway 25R, contact with the south complex tower was established to which their response was 'you are left of course, come right, and contact the north complex tower on 133.9.' through our turn to final we observed a commuter aircraft on final for runway 25L and an aircraft in position on runway 25R. Upon contact with the north complex tower, they asked if we could accept a north complex runway. We responded that we could not and that we were going around. They acknowledged and switched us to approach. An uneventful approach and landing to runway 25L was then accomplished. How problem arose: high volume of traffic at lax. Contributing factors: 1) frequencys jammed up with calls (blocked calls). 2) socal controller heard to say they were 'experiencing radio problems?!' how discovered: when approach switched us to tower. Corrective actions: this was an obvious go around situation, primarily due to confusion level. Perceptions, judgement, decisions: due to system/controllers being 'maxed out' from high traffic volume and the fluid environment which was indicated (changes and apologies), we should have rejected the visual for a higher level of control (ILS). Factors affecting performance: we left ourselves open for an in close 'slam dunk' visual (rushed) approach which can lead to one or more self-induced problems for the crew. Supplemental information from acn 522493: approaching smo while on sadde 6 arrival, received several runway changes, headings, for vectors. Controller initially advised vectors for runway 25L, from north side of airport. Then changed to fly heading 110 degrees for runway 25L by flying over airport to south side of airport. Next change was fly heading 060 degrees to remain on north side of airport for what we thought was runway 25R. However, this was for runway 24R, which is north complex. We called runway and were cleared visual. Turned base and rolled out on final for runway 25R. Observed traffic holding on runway 25R. Were then informed by tower we were lined up for south complex and did we wish to land there. Tower expected us to roll out on final for runway 24R, north complex. Tower then gave us heading to fly for runway 24R. At this time the confusion was apparent and I elected to go around and start again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD11 CREW EXECUTED A GAR AT LAX WHEN ATC'S INDECISION ON WHICH RWY TO USE WAS EVIDENT.

Narrative: HNL TO LAX. ARR IN THE TERMINAL CTL ENVIRONMENT, APPROX XA10. WE RECEIVED SEVERAL CHANGES TO DIFFERENT EXPECTED RWYS AND CHANGES IN ROUTING TO THOSE RWYS. SOCAL APCH APOLOGIZED TWICE FOR THE CONFUSION PRIOR TO OUR DOWNWIND ARR LEG IN A R-HAND PATTERN TO WESTERLY LNDG RWYS AT LAX. PAST THE ARPT ABEAM AT 6000 FT MSL, WE WERE CLRED TO 3000 FT MSL AND A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25R. THE CAPT STARTED A DSNDING TURN TO SET UP FOR THE ASSIGNED RWY. ON BASE, APCH CTL TOLD US TO SWITCH TO THE S COMPLEX TWR FREQ. ON OUR TURN TO FINAL FOR RWY 25R, CONTACT WITH THE S COMPLEX TWR WAS ESTABLISHED TO WHICH THEIR RESPONSE WAS 'YOU ARE L OF COURSE, COME R, AND CONTACT THE N COMPLEX TWR ON 133.9.' THROUGH OUR TURN TO FINAL WE OBSERVED A COMMUTER ACFT ON FINAL FOR RWY 25L AND AN ACFT IN POS ON RWY 25R. UPON CONTACT WITH THE N COMPLEX TWR, THEY ASKED IF WE COULD ACCEPT A N COMPLEX RWY. WE RESPONDED THAT WE COULD NOT AND THAT WE WERE GOING AROUND. THEY ACKNOWLEDGED AND SWITCHED US TO APCH. AN UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG TO RWY 25L WAS THEN ACCOMPLISHED. HOW PROB AROSE: HIGH VOLUME OF TFC AT LAX. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) FREQS JAMMED UP WITH CALLS (BLOCKED CALLS). 2) SOCAL CTLR HEARD TO SAY THEY WERE 'EXPERIENCING RADIO PROBS?!' HOW DISCOVERED: WHEN APCH SWITCHED US TO TWR. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: THIS WAS AN OBVIOUS GAR SIT, PRIMARILY DUE TO CONFUSION LEVEL. PERCEPTIONS, JUDGEMENT, DECISIONS: DUE TO SYS/CTLRS BEING 'MAXED OUT' FROM HIGH TFC VOLUME AND THE FLUID ENVIRONMENT WHICH WAS INDICATED (CHANGES AND APOLOGIES), WE SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE VISUAL FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF CTL (ILS). FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE: WE LEFT OURSELVES OPEN FOR AN IN CLOSE 'SLAM DUNK' VISUAL (RUSHED) APCH WHICH CAN LEAD TO ONE OR MORE SELF-INDUCED PROBS FOR THE CREW. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 522493: APCHING SMO WHILE ON SADDE 6 ARR, RECEIVED SEVERAL RWY CHANGES, HDGS, FOR VECTORS. CTLR INITIALLY ADVISED VECTORS FOR RWY 25L, FROM N SIDE OF ARPT. THEN CHANGED TO FLY HDG 110 DEGS FOR RWY 25L BY FLYING OVER ARPT TO S SIDE OF ARPT. NEXT CHANGE WAS FLY HDG 060 DEGS TO REMAIN ON N SIDE OF ARPT FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS RWY 25R. HOWEVER, THIS WAS FOR RWY 24R, WHICH IS N COMPLEX. WE CALLED RWY AND WERE CLRED VISUAL. TURNED BASE AND ROLLED OUT ON FINAL FOR RWY 25R. OBSERVED TFC HOLDING ON RWY 25R. WERE THEN INFORMED BY TWR WE WERE LINED UP FOR S COMPLEX AND DID WE WISH TO LAND THERE. TWR EXPECTED US TO ROLL OUT ON FINAL FOR RWY 24R, N COMPLEX. TWR THEN GAVE US HDG TO FLY FOR RWY 24R. AT THIS TIME THE CONFUSION WAS APPARENT AND I ELECTED TO GO AROUND AND START 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.