A300 landing at mco expressed uncertainty regarding approach clearance.

Attributes
ACN	598740
Time
Date	200311
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mco.airport
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl single value : 2600
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mco.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 8500 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	598740
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : private pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 5000 flight time type : 60
ASRS Report	598750
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

During the descent phase of flight all was normal. At approximately 12000 ft we contacted mco approach. We were instructed to expect an approach to runway 36L. Upon reading back clearance instructions, we were told to expect runway 36R instead. Several times during descent the approach controller mistakenly assigned runway 36L. We advised ATC at 20 mi from airport we had visual contact. A heading was assigned and a lower altitude given. Nearing the field, ATC assigned us a left downwind for runway 36R. Both crew members thought we were issued a visual approach clearance to runway 36R. A final altitude of 1600 ft was set in the MCP. At approximately 2000 ft, ATC advised us to stop descent. We asked about the visual approach clearance. ATC stated a visual approach clearance was not issued. (I say second clearance because I still feel an earlier clearance was given.) shortly after this, a second visual approach clearance was given and all else normal. Factors to consider: 1) possible ATC/crew fatigue. 2) miscom between crew and ATC. 3) night operations. Recommendations: when in doubt, always doublechk last instructions.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A300 LNDG AT MCO EXPRESSED UNCERTAINTY REGARDING APCH CLRNC.

Narrative: DURING THE DSCNT PHASE OF FLT ALL WAS NORMAL. AT APPROX 12000 FT WE CONTACTED MCO APCH. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO EXPECT AN APCH TO RWY 36L. UPON READING BACK CLRNC INSTRUCTIONS, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 36R INSTEAD. SEVERAL TIMES DURING DSCNT THE APCH CTLR MISTAKENLY ASSIGNED RWY 36L. WE ADVISED ATC AT 20 MI FROM ARPT WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT. A HDG WAS ASSIGNED AND A LOWER ALT GIVEN. NEARING THE FIELD, ATC ASSIGNED US A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 36R. BOTH CREW MEMBERS THOUGHT WE WERE ISSUED A VISUAL APCH CLRNC TO RWY 36R. A FINAL ALT OF 1600 FT WAS SET IN THE MCP. AT APPROX 2000 FT, ATC ADVISED US TO STOP DSCNT. WE ASKED ABOUT THE VISUAL APCH CLRNC. ATC STATED A VISUAL APCH CLRNC WAS NOT ISSUED. (I SAY SECOND CLRNC BECAUSE I STILL FEEL AN EARLIER CLRNC WAS GIVEN.) SHORTLY AFTER THIS, A SECOND VISUAL APCH CLRNC WAS GIVEN AND ALL ELSE NORMAL. FACTORS TO CONSIDER: 1) POSSIBLE ATC/CREW FATIGUE. 2) MISCOM BTWN CREW AND ATC. 3) NIGHT OPS. RECOMMENDATIONS: WHEN IN DOUBT, ALWAYS DOUBLECHK LAST INSTRUCTIONS.

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.