Narrative:

My recollection on the lax WX was 1200 ft broken 7 mi light rain, wind northerly at 3 KTS. It was early morning and the airport had just switched to arrs landing east on the north side, and departures west on the south side. We were the first aircraft set up to land east. As expected, our clearance changed to the moorpark arrival. We were then given vectors to the ILS runway 6L. The first officer tuned and idented the localizer with the final vector of heading 100 degrees at around 10 DME off the localizer iuwu. All indications appeared normal as we proceeded to intercept. As we closed on the FAF we still had not intercepted the localizer. There is only 1 functional NDB at lax, which is not part of this approach. Because of our distance from romen NDB, the indication appeared normal. We then entered visual conditions and realized we were well south of the approach course -- we were aimed at the south set of runways. There was departing traffic just breaking ground on runway 25R. At about the same moment the approach controller commented that we had flown through the localizer and instructed us to turn left to heading 320 degrees and climb to 5000 ft. I requested a visual approach to runway 6L, which we were granted. We then switched to tower frequency. As I aligned on final to runway 6L, we realized that the runway lights were very dim and the PAPI and ILS appeared to be off. I requested a landing on runway 6R which had all the lights on normal intensity, PAPI on, and is much longer. The tower questioned why we were aligned with runway 6L, and cleared us to land runway 6R. We made a normal landing on runway 6R. As we made our long taxi to parking, I asked the tower if the ILS runway 6L was on, and also why the runway lights were dim and the PAPI off. I was told that normally night lndgs were made on runway 6R. The lights were dim because the runway was not in use. The localizer was set for arrs runway 24R. Once we had blocked in, I again called the tower. I was told that approach control had set us up on the wrong runway, and that I should take the matter up with them. There was a write-up in the logbook from several days before indicating that the autoplt failed to capture the localizer. Because I wanted to rule out the possibility of our equipment being at fault, we tested the navs, which were good. We also tuned the localizer for runway 25L and observed the indications. Everything appeared normal, as it had on our approach. I then called approach control on the phone. I was told that lax had planned to close runway 6R for maintenance, but because of the rain they had not. The tower had not notified approach control that runway 6R was open. The controller apologized for the confusion. My concern with this event is that we flew very close to the departure course. The lack of coordination between tower and approach could have easily caused a traffic conflict.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B747 LNDG LAX EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTY WITH ILS RWY 6L, RECOVERS WITH VISUAL TO RWY 6R.

Narrative: MY RECOLLECTION ON THE LAX WX WAS 1200 FT BROKEN 7 MI LIGHT RAIN, WIND NORTHERLY AT 3 KTS. IT WAS EARLY MORNING AND THE ARPT HAD JUST SWITCHED TO ARRS LNDG E ON THE N SIDE, AND DEPS W ON THE S SIDE. WE WERE THE FIRST ACFT SET UP TO LAND E. AS EXPECTED, OUR CLRNC CHANGED TO THE MOORPARK ARR. WE WERE THEN GIVEN VECTORS TO THE ILS RWY 6L. THE FO TUNED AND IDENTED THE LOC WITH THE FINAL VECTOR OF HDG 100 DEGS AT AROUND 10 DME OFF THE LOC IUWU. ALL INDICATIONS APPEARED NORMAL AS WE PROCEEDED TO INTERCEPT. AS WE CLOSED ON THE FAF WE STILL HAD NOT INTERCEPTED THE LOC. THERE IS ONLY 1 FUNCTIONAL NDB AT LAX, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THIS APCH. BECAUSE OF OUR DISTANCE FROM ROMEN NDB, THE INDICATION APPEARED NORMAL. WE THEN ENTERED VISUAL CONDITIONS AND REALIZED WE WERE WELL S OF THE APCH COURSE -- WE WERE AIMED AT THE S SET OF RWYS. THERE WAS DEPARTING TFC JUST BREAKING GND ON RWY 25R. AT ABOUT THE SAME MOMENT THE APCH CTLR COMMENTED THAT WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH THE LOC AND INSTRUCTED US TO TURN L TO HDG 320 DEGS AND CLB TO 5000 FT. I REQUESTED A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 6L, WHICH WE WERE GRANTED. WE THEN SWITCHED TO TWR FREQ. AS I ALIGNED ON FINAL TO RWY 6L, WE REALIZED THAT THE RWY LIGHTS WERE VERY DIM AND THE PAPI AND ILS APPEARED TO BE OFF. I REQUESTED A LNDG ON RWY 6R WHICH HAD ALL THE LIGHTS ON NORMAL INTENSITY, PAPI ON, AND IS MUCH LONGER. THE TWR QUESTIONED WHY WE WERE ALIGNED WITH RWY 6L, AND CLRED US TO LAND RWY 6R. WE MADE A NORMAL LNDG ON RWY 6R. AS WE MADE OUR LONG TAXI TO PARKING, I ASKED THE TWR IF THE ILS RWY 6L WAS ON, AND ALSO WHY THE RWY LIGHTS WERE DIM AND THE PAPI OFF. I WAS TOLD THAT NORMALLY NIGHT LNDGS WERE MADE ON RWY 6R. THE LIGHTS WERE DIM BECAUSE THE RWY WAS NOT IN USE. THE LOC WAS SET FOR ARRS RWY 24R. ONCE WE HAD BLOCKED IN, I AGAIN CALLED THE TWR. I WAS TOLD THAT APCH CTL HAD SET US UP ON THE WRONG RWY, AND THAT I SHOULD TAKE THE MATTER UP WITH THEM. THERE WAS A WRITE-UP IN THE LOGBOOK FROM SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE INDICATING THAT THE AUTOPLT FAILED TO CAPTURE THE LOC. BECAUSE I WANTED TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF OUR EQUIP BEING AT FAULT, WE TESTED THE NAVS, WHICH WERE GOOD. WE ALSO TUNED THE LOC FOR RWY 25L AND OBSERVED THE INDICATIONS. EVERYTHING APPEARED NORMAL, AS IT HAD ON OUR APCH. I THEN CALLED APCH CTL ON THE PHONE. I WAS TOLD THAT LAX HAD PLANNED TO CLOSE RWY 6R FOR MAINT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE RAIN THEY HAD NOT. THE TWR HAD NOT NOTIFIED APCH CTL THAT RWY 6R WAS OPEN. THE CTLR APOLOGIZED FOR THE CONFUSION. MY CONCERN WITH THIS EVENT IS THAT WE FLEW VERY CLOSE TO THE DEP COURSE. THE LACK OF COORD BTWN TWR AND APCH COULD HAVE EASILY CAUSED A TFC CONFLICT.

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.