Narrative:

ATIS reported landing at ewr via ILS approach to runway 22L. New york approach assigned VOR/DME runway 22L approach. The captain mistakenly assumed assigned approach was to VOR runway 22R. Due to the high workload of intercepting the inbound course, descending to stepdown altitudes, configuring the aircraft, and reduced visibility, the radio change-over to tower frequency occurred late. This caused the runway selection error to go undetected by both the captain and first officer until rollout. This resulted in our landing on runway 22R after being cleared to land on runway 22L. Supplemental information from acn 556943: ord based check airman (check captain) IOE with student first officer on first leg of first IOE sequence. Landing at ewr airport. Ewr ATIS reported ILS runway 22L approachs were being conducted at ewr airport. I briefed the ILS runway 22L approach. Ny approach actually assigned us the VOR DME runway 22L approach. I misheard the clearance to read 'cleared VOR runway 22R.' ny approach gave us a short vector to intercept the inbound course 2 mi inside the teterboro VOR, 8 mi from the runway. Due to the high workload, intercepting the inbound course 8 mi from the runway with marginal visibility, descending down to a step down altitude, configuring the aircraft for landing and switching to tower close in, the runway assignment misunderstanding was not detected by either me or the first officer and we landed on runway 22R instead of the assigned runway 22L. We heard no calls from ewr tower advising us that we were not landing on the assigned runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD SUPER 80 FLC INADVERTENTLY LANDED ON THE WRONG PARALLEL RWY AT EWR DUE TO UNEXPECTED CHANGE IN INST APCH PROC, RECONFIGURING THE ACFT AND LATE LNDG CLRNC.

Narrative: ATIS RPTED LNDG AT EWR VIA ILS APCH TO RWY 22L. NEW YORK APCH ASSIGNED VOR/DME RWY 22L APCH. THE CAPT MISTAKENLY ASSUMED ASSIGNED APCH WAS TO VOR RWY 22R. DUE TO THE HIGH WORKLOAD OF INTERCEPTING THE INBOUND COURSE, DSNDING TO STEPDOWN ALTS, CONFIGURING THE ACFT, AND REDUCED VISIBILITY, THE RADIO CHANGE-OVER TO TWR FREQ OCCURRED LATE. THIS CAUSED THE RWY SELECTION ERROR TO GO UNDETECTED BY BOTH THE CAPT AND FO UNTIL ROLLOUT. THIS RESULTED IN OUR LNDG ON RWY 22R AFTER BEING CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 22L. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 556943: ORD BASED CHK AIRMAN (CHK CAPT) IOE WITH STUDENT FO ON FIRST LEG OF FIRST IOE SEQUENCE. LNDG AT EWR ARPT. EWR ATIS RPTED ILS RWY 22L APCHS WERE BEING CONDUCTED AT EWR ARPT. I BRIEFED THE ILS RWY 22L APCH. NY APCH ACTUALLY ASSIGNED US THE VOR DME RWY 22L APCH. I MISHEARD THE CLRNC TO READ 'CLRED VOR RWY 22R.' NY APCH GAVE US A SHORT VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE INBOUND COURSE 2 MI INSIDE THE TETERBORO VOR, 8 MI FROM THE RWY. DUE TO THE HIGH WORKLOAD, INTERCEPTING THE INBOUND COURSE 8 MI FROM THE RWY WITH MARGINAL VISIBILITY, DSNDING DOWN TO A STEP DOWN ALT, CONFIGURING THE ACFT FOR LNDG AND SWITCHING TO TWR CLOSE IN, THE RWY ASSIGNMENT MISUNDERSTANDING WAS NOT DETECTED BY EITHER ME OR THE FO AND WE LANDED ON RWY 22R INSTEAD OF THE ASSIGNED RWY 22L. WE HEARD NO CALLS FROM EWR TWR ADVISING US THAT WE WERE NOT LNDG ON THE ASSIGNED RWY.

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.