<< >> NASA ASRS Report 567855, December 2002

On initial contact, a B737 crew were advised to expect runway 9R approach but learned later they were to use runway 9L.

Attributes
ACN	567855
Time
Date	200212
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	intersection : ord
State Reference	IL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2300 msl bound upper : 3000
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : c90.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-800
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 09r
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : ord.tower
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 09r
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument
ASRS Report	567855
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	atc equipment other atc equipment : radar other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

ATC facility: ord approach. Location: 30 degree intercept to runway 9R. We were set up for runway 9L and upon initial contact with approach they assigned runway 9R. We set up for runway 9R. They turned us to heading 180 degrees, then 120 degrees cleared for the approach. When we saw another aircraft on final to runway 9R in front of us, I verified it was still runway 9R. The controller screamed 'no, you were cleared for runway 9L.' were positive they assigned runway 9R because we had to reset everything for the runway we were not expecting. We flew to runway 9L not in conflict with runway 9R, then the controller asked us our altitude and we said 2300 ft. He said 'you're assigned 3000 ft' and I said 'you cleared us for runway 9L a second ago.' the problem could have been avoided if he would have added the runway he wanted us to join the ILS for -- not just 120 degree heading, 3000 ft cleared approach.

Related reports:

• On initial contact with dtw approach, an A320 crew was told ...
• On initial call to cle approach, a B737 crew was advised to ...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ON INITIAL CONTACT, A B737 CREW WERE ADVISED TO EXPECT RWY 9R APCH BUT LEARNED LATER THEY WERE TO USE RWY 9L.

Narrative: ATC FACILITY: ORD APCH. LOCATION: 30 DEG INTERCEPT TO RWY 9R. WE WERE SET UP FOR RWY 9L AND UPON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH THEY ASSIGNED RWY 9R. WE SET UP FOR RWY 9R. THEY TURNED US TO HDG 180 DEGS, THEN 120 DEGS CLRED FOR THE APCH. WHEN WE SAW ANOTHER ACFT ON FINAL TO RWY 9R IN FRONT OF US, I VERIFIED IT WAS STILL RWY 9R. THE CTLR SCREAMED 'NO, YOU WERE CLRED FOR RWY 9L.' WERE POSITIVE THEY ASSIGNED RWY 9R BECAUSE WE HAD TO RESET EVERYTHING FOR THE RWY WE WERE NOT EXPECTING. WE FLEW TO RWY 9L NOT IN CONFLICT WITH RWY 9R, THEN THE CTLR ASKED US OUR ALT AND WE SAID 2300 FT. HE SAID 'YOU'RE ASSIGNED 3000 FT' AND I SAID 'YOU CLRED US FOR RWY 9L A SECOND AGO.' THE PROB COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF HE WOULD HAVE ADDED THE RWY HE WANTED US TO JOIN THE ILS FOR -- NOT JUST 120 DEG HDG, 3000 FT CLRED APCH.

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.