Narrative:

Misunderstood landing clearance: approaching isp for landing as the PNF, I copied the arrival ATIS as VFR at the field (approximately 1500 ft broken, 7 mi) and utilizing the ILS for landing runway 24 and also, (understood). Landing and departing 15R. I decided to monitor the first officer's approach with the HUD. New york approach vectored us to a left dogleg intercept to the runway 24 ILS, switching us to isp tower as we broke through the 1500 ft broken cloud layer at about five miles on final. I reported to tower that we were on his frequency for runway 24 and received his clearance to land on ( I believe) runway 24. I acknowledged this and repeated it to the first officer. At about 700 ft AGL isp tower asked us if we were going to circle. I wasn't sure why he asked this, I thought he was possibly offering a runway more closely aligned with a changing surface wind, the forecast winds were gusty but the ATIS winds were steady and light. I asked for a wind check. Tower replied that he had an airplane on runway 24, were we going to circle? I didn't see the airplane on the runway, and I asked the first officer if he saw it as I turned the HUD intensity down. The first officer replied that he did then see the light aircraft and that it was clearing the runway. I also saw the light aircraft as he turned to exit the runway and the tower cleared us to land on runway 24. I acknowledged that and the first officer landed. I believe that the misunderstanding was caused by a combination of factors. The ATIS wording may have intend to describe an ILS approach to 24, circling to land 15 right, but I understood it to mean landing runway 24 and 15R, and I'm sure that I did not hear the word 'circling' in the recording. Both the first officer and I believed that the tower cleared us to land on the runway associated with the ILS that we had intercepted, and neither of us heard the tower clear us to land on 15R, nor did we hear the word 'circle' at that time. We believed that the tower was intending to do us a favor by offering another runway, but we were too low and close to consider a circling maneuver. Finally, my HUD display was apparently so bright that it kept me from seeing the light aircraft tail on the runway. Although I had no doubts about the meaning of the ATIS at the time, when I think back on the wording of it, I can see that it could be interpreted differently. I resolve to listen even more closely to landing clrncs. (Note: when I called the tower after landing, on my own, the tower controller said that another aircraft reported hearing us cleared to land on 15R. Neither the first officer nor I heard that.) I do think that the word 'circling' should be included in the ATIS, and in a landing clearance, when that maneuver is required! I will also attempt to use the minimum setting necessary for clarity for the HUD symbology.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-700 CREW HAD MISUNDERSTOOD ABOUT WHICH RWY THEY WERE CLRED TO LAND ON.

Narrative: MISUNDERSTOOD LNDG CLRNC: APCHING ISP FOR LANDING AS THE PNF, I COPIED THE ARRIVAL ATIS AS VFR AT THE FIELD (APPROX 1500 FT BKN, 7 MI) AND UTILIZING THE ILS FOR LNDG RWY 24 AND ALSO, (UNDERSTOOD). LANDING AND DEPARTING 15R. I DECIDED TO MONITOR THE FO'S APCH WITH THE HUD. NEW YORK APCH VECTORED US TO A LEFT DOGLEG INTERCEPT TO THE RWY 24 ILS, SWITCHING US TO ISP TWR AS WE BROKE THROUGH THE 1500 FT BKN CLOUD LAYER AT ABOUT FIVE MILES ON FINAL. I REPORTED TO TWR THAT WE WERE ON HIS FREQ FOR RWY 24 AND RECEIVED HIS CLRNC TO LAND ON ( I BELIEVE) RWY 24. I ACKNOWLEDGED THIS AND REPEATED IT TO THE FO. AT ABOUT 700 FT AGL ISP TWR ASKED US IF WE WERE GOING TO CIRCLE. I WASN'T SURE WHY HE ASKED THIS, I THOUGHT HE WAS POSSIBLY OFFERING A RWY MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH A CHANGING SURFACE WIND, THE FORECAST WINDS WERE GUSTY BUT THE ATIS WINDS WERE STEADY AND LIGHT. I ASKED FOR A WIND CHECK. TWR REPLIED THAT HE HAD AN AIRPLANE ON RWY 24, WERE WE GOING TO CIRCLE? I DIDN'T SEE THE AIRPLANE ON THE RWY, AND I ASKED THE FO IF HE SAW IT AS I TURNED THE HUD INTENSITY DOWN. THE FO REPLIED THAT HE DID THEN SEE THE LIGHT ACFT AND THAT IT WAS CLRING THE RWY. I ALSO SAW THE LIGHT ACFT AS HE TURNED TO EXIT THE RWY AND THE TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 24. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND THE FO LANDED. I BELIEVE THAT THE MISUNDERSTANDING WAS CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF FACTORS. THE ATIS WORDING MAY HAVE INTEND TO DESCRIBE AN ILS APCH TO 24, CIRCLING TO LAND 15 R, BUT I UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN LANDING RWY 24 AND 15R, AND I'M SURE THAT I DID NOT HEAR THE WORD 'CIRCLING' IN THE RECORDING. BOTH THE FO AND I BELIEVED THAT THE TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON THE RWY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ILS THAT WE HAD INTERCEPTED, AND NEITHER OF US HEARD THE TWR CLR US TO LAND ON 15R, NOR DID WE HEAR THE WORD 'CIRCLE' AT THAT TIME. WE BELIEVED THAT THE TWR WAS INTENDING TO DO US A FAVOR BY OFFERING ANOTHER RWY, BUT WE WERE TOO LOW AND CLOSE TO CONSIDER A CIRCLING MANEUVER. FINALLY, MY HUD DISPLAY WAS APPARENTLY SO BRIGHT THAT IT KEPT ME FROM SEEING THE LIGHT ACFT TAIL ON THE RWY. ALTHOUGH I HAD NO DOUBTS ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE ATIS AT THE TIME, WHEN I THINK BACK ON THE WORDING OF IT, I CAN SEE THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. I RESOLVE TO LISTEN EVEN MORE CLOSELY TO LNDG CLRNCS. (NOTE: WHEN I CALLED THE TWR AFTER LNDG, ON MY OWN, THE TWR CTLR SAID THAT ANOTHER ACFT REPORTED HEARING US CLRED TO LAND ON 15R. NEITHER THE FO NOR I HEARD THAT.) I DO THINK THAT THE WORD 'CIRCLING' SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ATIS, AND IN A LNDG CLRNC, WHEN THAT MANEUVER IS REQUIRED! I WILL ALSO ATTEMPT TO USE THE MINIMUM SETTING NECESSARY FOR CLARITY FOR THE HUD SYMBOLOGY.

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.