Narrative:

Flying into lax that afternoon, we were told to expect the ILS runway 24R. Approach control gave us a 90+ degree heading change to intercept the localizer. The flight director has a tendency to lag or show incorrect guidance occasionally on such severe, tight intercepts. We were handed off to tower and asked if we had the field visually. I responded that we had visual contact with the field and we were cleared for the visual. I started to notice left deviation and began to correct for the situation. About that time, the tower controller began to question our position relevant to our landing runway. I became confused and believed he was referring to runway 25R which I had in sight. I incorrectly began turning left, mistaking runway 25R for runway 24R. Tower came back and ordered an immediate right turn at which time runway 24R was just coming into view. It was very hazy and visibility was not good looking into the bright setting sun. I made the correction and we landed without any other problems. Tower and ground never told me to make any phone calls or action required. I should have stuck to the instruments instead of relying on trying to visually identify runway 24R. I also believe the approach controller did not help us out by giving us a late turn on, just outside the FAF, with a 90+ degree intercept heading change. I believe if he had given us more standard intercept guidance, I wouldn't have had any problem intercepting the localizer or doubting the flight director -- which does lag and give incorrect course guidance during aggressive maneuvering. The localizer was reading accurately though. I did become confused momentarily between my visual picture, instrument indication, and tone of tower controller's voice and questioning. Definitely learned a valuable lesson.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A HAWKER 800 XP FT CREW BECOMES DISORIENTED WHEN THE TWR CTLR ISSUES A LATE TURN ONTO FINAL AND THEY INITIALLY LINE OFF FOR THE WRONG RWY.

Narrative: FLYING INTO LAX THAT AFTERNOON, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT THE ILS RWY 24R. APCH CTL GAVE US A 90+ DEG HDG CHANGE TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. THE FLT DIRECTOR HAS A TENDENCY TO LAG OR SHOW INCORRECT GUIDANCE OCCASIONALLY ON SUCH SEVERE, TIGHT INTERCEPTS. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO TWR AND ASKED IF WE HAD THE FIELD VISUALLY. I RESPONDED THAT WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE FIELD AND WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. I STARTED TO NOTICE L DEV AND BEGAN TO CORRECT FOR THE SIT. ABOUT THAT TIME, THE TWR CTLR BEGAN TO QUESTION OUR POS RELEVANT TO OUR LNDG RWY. I BECAME CONFUSED AND BELIEVED HE WAS REFERRING TO RWY 25R WHICH I HAD IN SIGHT. I INCORRECTLY BEGAN TURNING L, MISTAKING RWY 25R FOR RWY 24R. TWR CAME BACK AND ORDERED AN IMMEDIATE R TURN AT WHICH TIME RWY 24R WAS JUST COMING INTO VIEW. IT WAS VERY HAZY AND VISIBILITY WAS NOT GOOD LOOKING INTO THE BRIGHT SETTING SUN. I MADE THE CORRECTION AND WE LANDED WITHOUT ANY OTHER PROBS. TWR AND GND NEVER TOLD ME TO MAKE ANY PHONE CALLS OR ACTION REQUIRED. I SHOULD HAVE STUCK TO THE INSTS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON TRYING TO VISUALLY IDENTIFY RWY 24R. I ALSO BELIEVE THE APCH CTLR DID NOT HELP US OUT BY GIVING US A LATE TURN ON, JUST OUTSIDE THE FAF, WITH A 90+ DEG INTERCEPT HDG CHANGE. I BELIEVE IF HE HAD GIVEN US MORE STANDARD INTERCEPT GUIDANCE, I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY PROB INTERCEPTING THE LOC OR DOUBTING THE FLT DIRECTOR -- WHICH DOES LAG AND GIVE INCORRECT COURSE GUIDANCE DURING AGGRESSIVE MANEUVERING. THE LOC WAS READING ACCURATELY THOUGH. I DID BECOME CONFUSED MOMENTARILY BTWN MY VISUAL PICTURE, INST INDICATION, AND TONE OF TWR CTLR'S VOICE AND QUESTIONING. DEFINITELY LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON.

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.