Narrative:

Intercepted and flew wrong localizer. We were arriving via the paradise 4 into lax and told to expect runway 25L. Approaching 'mitts,' we were cleared to intercept runway 24R. I failed to change the localizer frequency from runway 25L to runway 24R and intercepted the localizer to runway 25L. I followed the course to a point after 'fuelr,' then turned to intercept the localizer runway 24R. I intercepted the course prior to 'merce' and followed the course to landing runway 24R at lax. Simultaneous to my turn off the runway 25L localizer to intercept the runway 24R localizer, socal asks if I was turning to intercept runway 24R. I answered in the affirmative and there was no more discussion of it. I wasn't focused on the approach because I was sure I would be visual. I was complacent because I have flown the approach many times and must have assumed I had the right frequency. I did not tune, identify, monitor. Supplemental information from acn 544829: compounding the problem I had my radio turned to the lax VOR when it should have been on runway 24R localizer, and the captain was not using RNAV. With this set up we flew down the runway 25L localizer from arnes to fuelr intersection. When I switched from the lax VOR to the runway 24R localizer on my radio, the mistake was discovered almost simultaneously by both of us, and ATC. The underlying cause was zero navigation redundancy. The PF was not using RNAV, and his radio was tuned to the localizer. If RNAV was in use, or if I was tuned to correct localizer frequency, we would have stood a far greater chance of discovering the error earlier. The localizer does have DME, so there was no reason for me to be on a VOR, other than that I was somewhat behind the aircraft. The last min runway change compounded the situation, and I failed to identify the navs prior to intercept. I feel that even though RNAV was not used for primary navigation, the PDZ4 should have been programmed into the CDU for extra xchking and increased situational awareness. Lastly, although I do appreciate the benefits of landing on the north side of the airport, I feel there are way too many last min runway changes at lax which increases the workload for pilots and thus increase the chance of an error.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WRONG ILS COURSE RWY 25L FLOWN FOR 7 NM BEFORE PIC OF A B737-300 REALIZES HE IS ON THE WRONG LOC FOR CLRNC TO FLY RWY 24R ILS TO LAX, CA.

Narrative: INTERCEPTED AND FLEW WRONG LOC. WE WERE ARRIVING VIA THE PARADISE 4 INTO LAX AND TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 25L. APCHING 'MITTS,' WE WERE CLRED TO INTERCEPT RWY 24R. I FAILED TO CHANGE THE LOC FREQ FROM RWY 25L TO RWY 24R AND INTERCEPTED THE LOC TO RWY 25L. I FOLLOWED THE COURSE TO A POINT AFTER 'FUELR,' THEN TURNED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC RWY 24R. I INTERCEPTED THE COURSE PRIOR TO 'MERCE' AND FOLLOWED THE COURSE TO LNDG RWY 24R AT LAX. SIMULTANEOUS TO MY TURN OFF THE RWY 25L LOC TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 24R LOC, SOCAL ASKS IF I WAS TURNING TO INTERCEPT RWY 24R. I ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THERE WAS NO MORE DISCUSSION OF IT. I WASN'T FOCUSED ON THE APCH BECAUSE I WAS SURE I WOULD BE VISUAL. I WAS COMPLACENT BECAUSE I HAVE FLOWN THE APCH MANY TIMES AND MUST HAVE ASSUMED I HAD THE RIGHT FREQ. I DID NOT TUNE, IDENT, MONITOR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 544829: COMPOUNDING THE PROB I HAD MY RADIO TURNED TO THE LAX VOR WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON RWY 24R LOC, AND THE CAPT WAS NOT USING RNAV. WITH THIS SET UP WE FLEW DOWN THE RWY 25L LOC FROM ARNES TO FUELR INTXN. WHEN I SWITCHED FROM THE LAX VOR TO THE RWY 24R LOC ON MY RADIO, THE MISTAKE WAS DISCOVERED ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY BY BOTH OF US, AND ATC. THE UNDERLYING CAUSE WAS ZERO NAV REDUNDANCY. THE PF WAS NOT USING RNAV, AND HIS RADIO WAS TUNED TO THE LOC. IF RNAV WAS IN USE, OR IF I WAS TUNED TO CORRECT LOC FREQ, WE WOULD HAVE STOOD A FAR GREATER CHANCE OF DISCOVERING THE ERROR EARLIER. THE LOC DOES HAVE DME, SO THERE WAS NO REASON FOR ME TO BE ON A VOR, OTHER THAN THAT I WAS SOMEWHAT BEHIND THE ACFT. THE LAST MIN RWY CHANGE COMPOUNDED THE SIT, AND I FAILED TO IDENT THE NAVS PRIOR TO INTERCEPT. I FEEL THAT EVEN THOUGH RNAV WAS NOT USED FOR PRIMARY NAV, THE PDZ4 SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED INTO THE CDU FOR EXTRA XCHKING AND INCREASED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. LASTLY, ALTHOUGH I DO APPRECIATE THE BENEFITS OF LNDG ON THE N SIDE OF THE ARPT, I FEEL THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY LAST MIN RWY CHANGES AT LAX WHICH INCREASES THE WORKLOAD FOR PLTS AND THUS INCREASE THE CHANCE OF AN ERROR.

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.