Narrative:

Our flight had just completed an uneventful approach and landing to runway 5R at mexico city (MMMX). After clearing runway 5R; ATC advised us that landing clearance had been issued to runway 5L; not runway 5R. We expressed our disagreement to the tower controller and advised him that we understood runway 5R and read back runway 5R with no objection from the tower. Throughout the descent; approach; and landing sequence; we were advised to expect an approach and landing to runway 5R this is SOP for MMMX). At no time did we hear an ATC transmission directing us to runway 5L. Notes: 1) the tower had ample opportunity to direct a go around if they felt their clearance was not understood. 2) standard operations in MMMX are to use runway 5R for arrs and runway 5L for departures. 3) my preference when operating to MMMX is not to accept a side-step clearance to runway 5L for the following reasons: challenging runway 5R approach to final; high terrain in all quadrants; high altitude airport generating faster true airspds; staggered runway positioning of runway 5L; and the morning low level smog and city lights that make visual runway alignment a high risk maneuver. If a last min runway 5L clearance had been issued; I would not have accepted. Given the above conditions; it's safer to perform the published go around for runway 5R. Also; it's worth considering the potential track conflict that could occur if one chose to accept runway 5L; then reject the landing; perform the runway 5R published missed approach; while the tower clears another aircraft to depart on runway 5R. Supplemental information from acn 675240: on arrival to MMMX we were given a clearance to expect ILS DME 2 runway 5R approach. We were told to contact tower. On initial contact with MMMX tower; captain and I was told to report runway 5R in sight for a landing on runway 5R. MMMX tower then asked if we had the runway in sight. I responded by saying yes we have runway 5R in sight. Immediately after we were given a landing clearance to land on runway 5R. I responded by repeating the clearance; 'clear to land runway 5R.' on a second occasion while on the approach to runway 5R; we were again given a landing clearance to land on runway 5R. I then again responded by repeating the clearance 'clear to land runway 5R.' on short final; there was an aircraft departing runway 5R. The aircraft departed and shortly after we landed on runway 5R without any problems. After vacating the runway; MMMX tower asked did we know we were cleared to land on runway 5L. I stated firmly 'no; the captain and I heard cleared to land runway 5R.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 CREW LANDED ON MMMX RWY 5R AFTER CONFIRMING LNDG CLRNC 3 TIMES BUT WERE TOLD AFTER LNDG THEIR CLRNC WAS TO LAND ON RWY 5L.

Narrative: OUR FLT HAD JUST COMPLETED AN UNEVENTFUL APCH AND LNDG TO RWY 5R AT MEXICO CITY (MMMX). AFTER CLRING RWY 5R; ATC ADVISED US THAT LNDG CLRNC HAD BEEN ISSUED TO RWY 5L; NOT RWY 5R. WE EXPRESSED OUR DISAGREEMENT TO THE TWR CTLR AND ADVISED HIM THAT WE UNDERSTOOD RWY 5R AND READ BACK RWY 5R WITH NO OBJECTION FROM THE TWR. THROUGHOUT THE DSCNT; APCH; AND LNDG SEQUENCE; WE WERE ADVISED TO EXPECT AN APCH AND LNDG TO RWY 5R THIS IS SOP FOR MMMX). AT NO TIME DID WE HEAR AN ATC XMISSION DIRECTING US TO RWY 5L. NOTES: 1) THE TWR HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT A GAR IF THEY FELT THEIR CLRNC WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD. 2) STANDARD OPS IN MMMX ARE TO USE RWY 5R FOR ARRS AND RWY 5L FOR DEPS. 3) MY PREFERENCE WHEN OPERATING TO MMMX IS NOT TO ACCEPT A SIDE-STEP CLRNC TO RWY 5L FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: CHALLENGING RWY 5R APCH TO FINAL; HIGH TERRAIN IN ALL QUADRANTS; HIGH ALT ARPT GENERATING FASTER TRUE AIRSPDS; STAGGERED RWY POSITIONING OF RWY 5L; AND THE MORNING LOW LEVEL SMOG AND CITY LIGHTS THAT MAKE VISUAL RWY ALIGNMENT A HIGH RISK MANEUVER. IF A LAST MIN RWY 5L CLRNC HAD BEEN ISSUED; I WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED. GIVEN THE ABOVE CONDITIONS; IT'S SAFER TO PERFORM THE PUBLISHED GAR FOR RWY 5R. ALSO; IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL TRACK CONFLICT THAT COULD OCCUR IF ONE CHOSE TO ACCEPT RWY 5L; THEN REJECT THE LNDG; PERFORM THE RWY 5R PUBLISHED MISSED APCH; WHILE THE TWR CLRS ANOTHER ACFT TO DEPART ON RWY 5R. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 675240: ON ARR TO MMMX WE WERE GIVEN A CLRNC TO EXPECT ILS DME 2 RWY 5R APCH. WE WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH MMMX TWR; CAPT AND I WAS TOLD TO RPT RWY 5R IN SIGHT FOR A LNDG ON RWY 5R. MMMX TWR THEN ASKED IF WE HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT. I RESPONDED BY SAYING YES WE HAVE RWY 5R IN SIGHT. IMMEDIATELY AFTER WE WERE GIVEN A LNDG CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 5R. I RESPONDED BY REPEATING THE CLRNC; 'CLR TO LAND RWY 5R.' ON A SECOND OCCASION WHILE ON THE APCH TO RWY 5R; WE WERE AGAIN GIVEN A LNDG CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 5R. I THEN AGAIN RESPONDED BY REPEATING THE CLRNC 'CLR TO LAND RWY 5R.' ON SHORT FINAL; THERE WAS AN ACFT DEPARTING RWY 5R. THE ACFT DEPARTED AND SHORTLY AFTER WE LANDED ON RWY 5R WITHOUT ANY PROBS. AFTER VACATING THE RWY; MMMX TWR ASKED DID WE KNOW WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 5L. I STATED FIRMLY 'NO; THE CAPT AND I HEARD CLRED TO LAND RWY 5R.'

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.