Narrative:

While being vectored for the approach at mco, we were told to expect runway 17 and that runway 18R was on request. We were then told to fly 270 degrees, maintain 3000 ft. A TA was given for a jet at 11 O'clock position at 5000 ft. We were then asked if we could maintain 180 KTS until the OM for runway 17. We said that was affirmative. We were then given a 250 degree heading, maintain 3000 ft and 180 KTS, cleared for the approach runway 18R. Both myself and the captain heard runway 18R and thought we had been cleared for runway 18R, which was on request. The approach controller then gave us a 210 degree heading and cleared us for the ILS runway 17. We rapidly changed frequencys and shot the runway 17 ILS without incident. However, the captain told the controller that he didn't appreciate being changed over at the last min, as we had no time to set-up. The controller said he thought he had cleared us for runway 18R. We switched to tower shortly after on final as the controller appeared to have forgotten about us. At the gate, we were told to call the control supervisor, who asked the captain what the problem was. The supervisor said he reviewed the tapes and said the controller at no time cleared us for runway 18R. We did not agree with this as we both heard a clearance for runway 18R, then runway 17. This problem/confusion was created by bad communication between ATC and our crew. ATC was probably distracted by the parallel approachs on runway 18R and accidentally cleared us initially for runway 18R, when they meant runway 17. Perhaps having more than one approach controller for each runway would alleviate this problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DHC8 FLC COMPLAINT THAT APCH CTLR CHANGED THEIR RWY ASSIGNMENT WHILE ON VECTOR TO FINAL WITHOUT SUFFICIENT TIME TO RETUNE THE RWY ILS.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR THE APCH AT MCO, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 17 AND THAT RWY 18R WAS ON REQUEST. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO FLY 270 DEGS, MAINTAIN 3000 FT. A TA WAS GIVEN FOR A JET AT 11 O'CLOCK POS AT 5000 FT. WE WERE THEN ASKED IF WE COULD MAINTAIN 180 KTS UNTIL THE OM FOR RWY 17. WE SAID THAT WAS AFFIRMATIVE. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A 250 DEG HDG, MAINTAIN 3000 FT AND 180 KTS, CLRED FOR THE APCH RWY 18R. BOTH MYSELF AND THE CAPT HEARD RWY 18R AND THOUGHT WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR RWY 18R, WHICH WAS ON REQUEST. THE APCH CTLR THEN GAVE US A 210 DEG HDG AND CLRED US FOR THE ILS RWY 17. WE RAPIDLY CHANGED FREQS AND SHOT THE RWY 17 ILS WITHOUT INCIDENT. HOWEVER, THE CAPT TOLD THE CTLR THAT HE DIDN'T APPRECIATE BEING CHANGED OVER AT THE LAST MIN, AS WE HAD NO TIME TO SET-UP. THE CTLR SAID HE THOUGHT HE HAD CLRED US FOR RWY 18R. WE SWITCHED TO TWR SHORTLY AFTER ON FINAL AS THE CTLR APPEARED TO HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT US. AT THE GATE, WE WERE TOLD TO CALL THE CTL SUPVR, WHO ASKED THE CAPT WHAT THE PROB WAS. THE SUPVR SAID HE REVIEWED THE TAPES AND SAID THE CTLR AT NO TIME CLRED US FOR RWY 18R. WE DID NOT AGREE WITH THIS AS WE BOTH HEARD A CLRNC FOR RWY 18R, THEN RWY 17. THIS PROB/CONFUSION WAS CREATED BY BAD COM BTWN ATC AND OUR CREW. ATC WAS PROBABLY DISTRACTED BY THE PARALLEL APCHS ON RWY 18R AND ACCIDENTALLY CLRED US INITIALLY FOR RWY 18R, WHEN THEY MEANT RWY 17. PERHAPS HAVING MORE THAN ONE APCH CTLR FOR EACH RWY WOULD ALLEVIATE THIS PROB.

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.