Narrative:

We had been vectored numerous times prior to entering the holding pattern at ock VOR, and were subsequently given a heading to depart ock for vectors to the ILS to runway 9L. Although we briefed runway 9L, and had the runway 9L approach plates in front of us, all three of us missed the fact that the first officer had selected runway 9R for the approach. We were given a clearance to intercept runway 9L from the south, on a heading of 040 degrees, and the FMC intercepted runway 9R. As soon as the controller asked us to verify that we were intercepting runway 9L, we realized our mistake, and re-entered runway 9L in the FMC, and asked the controller for a heading to intercept. The first officer turned to the assigned heading, but went through the localizer, which caused me to request new vectors back around for another intercept and another approach. Heathrow approach control gave us vectors around, and we re-intercepted runway 9L, with no further problems. This was simply a case of lack of attention to detail, for which I accept full responsibility. All three of us failed to properly ascertain the identifier for runway 9L, or confirm that runway 9L was displayed on the navigation display, or identify runway 9L. This incident reaffirms the need for all three pilots to verify everything, taking nothing for granted, and to be vigilant in confirming any and all entries made to the FMC.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF B777 ON ARR TO EGLL INSTALL THE APCH TO RWY 9R VICE RWY 9L IN THE FMS. FLY THROUGH RWY 9L FINAL AND START TO INTERCEPT RWY 9R BEFORE ALERTED BY EGLL DIRECTOR.

Narrative: WE HAD BEEN VECTORED NUMEROUS TIMES PRIOR TO ENTERING THE HOLDING PATTERN AT OCK VOR, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN A HDG TO DEPART OCK FOR VECTORS TO THE ILS TO RWY 9L. ALTHOUGH WE BRIEFED RWY 9L, AND HAD THE RWY 9L APCH PLATES IN FRONT OF US, ALL THREE OF US MISSED THE FACT THAT THE FO HAD SELECTED RWY 9R FOR THE APCH. WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT RWY 9L FROM THE S, ON A HDG OF 040 DEGS, AND THE FMC INTERCEPTED RWY 9R. AS SOON AS THE CTLR ASKED US TO VERIFY THAT WE WERE INTERCEPTING RWY 9L, WE REALIZED OUR MISTAKE, AND RE-ENTERED RWY 9L IN THE FMC, AND ASKED THE CTLR FOR A HDG TO INTERCEPT. THE FO TURNED TO THE ASSIGNED HDG, BUT WENT THROUGH THE LOC, WHICH CAUSED ME TO REQUEST NEW VECTORS BACK AROUND FOR ANOTHER INTERCEPT AND ANOTHER APCH. HEATHROW APCH CTL GAVE US VECTORS AROUND, AND WE RE-INTERCEPTED RWY 9L, WITH NO FURTHER PROBS. THIS WAS SIMPLY A CASE OF LACK OF ATTN TO DETAIL, FOR WHICH I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY. ALL THREE OF US FAILED TO PROPERLY ASCERTAIN THE IDENTIFIER FOR RWY 9L, OR CONFIRM THAT RWY 9L WAS DISPLAYED ON THE NAV DISPLAY, OR IDENT RWY 9L. THIS INCIDENT REAFFIRMS THE NEED FOR ALL THREE PLTS TO VERIFY EVERYTHING, TAKING NOTHING FOR GRANTED, AND TO BE VIGILANT IN CONFIRMING ANY AND ALL ENTRIES MADE TO THE FMC.

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.