Narrative:

On dec/fri/02 at approximately XA55, we were about 5 seconds from flare on an ILS runway 27R approach to phl, when we were instructed by phl tower to go around. The PF commenced an uneventful go around and we returned for landing on runway 27R. The tower informed us on the go around that we had been cleared to land on runway 26. The following are the events that led up to the go around. When we first talked to phl approach, we requested runway 27R, and were told to expect the ILS runway 27R approach. We were then vectored for the ILS runway 27R, and then cleared for the ILS runway 27R. Approach pointed out a lear 55 on the approach for runway 26. We called traffic in sight and were told by approach to maintain visual separation with the lear 55. (We were not told to follow the lear 55.) we were told to contact tower. We complied and tower cleared us to land. I (as the PNF) read back 'cleared to land.' I can't remember if I read back the runway number as is my usual practice, or if the tower specified. Our ILS for runway 27R was normal, with this exception: the l-hand flight director did not appear to be operating correctly. We were, therefore, flying the ILS runway 27R raw data with the distraction of the errant left side flight director. With this distraction, I may not have heard the tower's full transmission when we were cleared to land. We had been told to expect runway 27R, cleared for the ILS runway 27R and, therefore, had every reason to expect to be 'cleared to land runway 27R.' runway 26 at phl is closest to the FBO, and tower may have assumed that was the runway we wanted. We had requested runway 27R because of our landing weight. At the moment of our go around, there did not appear to be a traffic conflict on runway 27R. After landing, I called phl tower to discuss our go around. I was told there were no issues for us to be concerned about. I described the events to ATC as I have here. Phl has 3 parallel runways -- runway 27L, runway 27R, and runway 26. Runway 26 is the usual GA runway due to its proximity to FBO at phl. In the future, especially at phl and other airports with parallel runways, I will make certain that we are in agreement with tower as to our landing clearance. However, I am surprised at the apparent lack or missed communication between phl approach control and phl tower control in this instance. I will be more alert to this possibility in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER BEING CLRED FOR AN ILS APCH AND LNDG PHL RWY 27R, AN LJ55 CREW WERE NOT SURE IF THE TWR HAD CLRED THEM TO LAND ON RWY 26.

Narrative: ON DEC/FRI/02 AT APPROX XA55, WE WERE ABOUT 5 SECONDS FROM FLARE ON AN ILS RWY 27R APCH TO PHL, WHEN WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY PHL TWR TO GO AROUND. THE PF COMMENCED AN UNEVENTFUL GAR AND WE RETURNED FOR LNDG ON RWY 27R. THE TWR INFORMED US ON THE GAR THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 26. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO THE GAR. WHEN WE FIRST TALKED TO PHL APCH, WE REQUESTED RWY 27R, AND WERE TOLD TO EXPECT THE ILS RWY 27R APCH. WE WERE THEN VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 27R, AND THEN CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 27R. APCH POINTED OUT A LEAR 55 ON THE APCH FOR RWY 26. WE CALLED TFC IN SIGHT AND WERE TOLD BY APCH TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH THE LEAR 55. (WE WERE NOT TOLD TO FOLLOW THE LEAR 55.) WE WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR. WE COMPLIED AND TWR CLRED US TO LAND. I (AS THE PNF) READ BACK 'CLRED TO LAND.' I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I READ BACK THE RWY NUMBER AS IS MY USUAL PRACTICE, OR IF THE TWR SPECIFIED. OUR ILS FOR RWY 27R WAS NORMAL, WITH THIS EXCEPTION: THE L-HAND FLT DIRECTOR DID NOT APPEAR TO BE OPERATING CORRECTLY. WE WERE, THEREFORE, FLYING THE ILS RWY 27R RAW DATA WITH THE DISTR OF THE ERRANT L SIDE FLT DIRECTOR. WITH THIS DISTR, I MAY NOT HAVE HEARD THE TWR'S FULL XMISSION WHEN WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. WE HAD BEEN TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 27R, CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 27R AND, THEREFORE, HAD EVERY REASON TO EXPECT TO BE 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 27R.' RWY 26 AT PHL IS CLOSEST TO THE FBO, AND TWR MAY HAVE ASSUMED THAT WAS THE RWY WE WANTED. WE HAD REQUESTED RWY 27R BECAUSE OF OUR LNDG WT. AT THE MOMENT OF OUR GAR, THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A TFC CONFLICT ON RWY 27R. AFTER LNDG, I CALLED PHL TWR TO DISCUSS OUR GAR. I WAS TOLD THERE WERE NO ISSUES FOR US TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. I DESCRIBED THE EVENTS TO ATC AS I HAVE HERE. PHL HAS 3 PARALLEL RWYS -- RWY 27L, RWY 27R, AND RWY 26. RWY 26 IS THE USUAL GA RWY DUE TO ITS PROX TO FBO AT PHL. IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY AT PHL AND OTHER ARPTS WITH PARALLEL RWYS, I WILL MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH TWR AS TO OUR LNDG CLRNC. HOWEVER, I AM SURPRISED AT THE APPARENT LACK OR MISSED COM BTWN PHL APCH CTL AND PHL TWR CTL IN THIS INSTANCE. I WILL BE MORE ALERT TO THIS POSSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE.

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.