Narrative:

During approach control vectors to mco; we received conflicting approach/runway assignments. The first controller told us to expect an approach to runway 36R (even though ATIS advertised landing south); we assumed it was due to possible convective activity developing north of the airport as the leese arrival was impacted by storms. Upon handoff to the next controller; we were told the previous controller was incorrect and that we would be landing on runway 18R. We were then given a clearance to fly to the orl VOR and descend to 4000 ft. I completed those actions and asked the captain to request a lower altitude. While waiting for him to make that request; I heard the tower controller issue a landing clearance over the radio. The captain had changed from the last approach controller frequency to tower frequency before being instructed to do so. After going back to approach; we were given a lower altitude followed by a clearance for a visual approach to runway 18R. As pilot flying; I attempted to configure the aircraft for a stabilized approach; but realized this was not going to be possible. I directed a go-around. We executed the go-around and subsequent approach and landing to runway 17R uneventfully. I believe increased vigilance by both pilots would have prevented the frequency error. I also believe I should have configured the aircraft earlier and the go-around may have been avoided even with the frequency confusion. Approach control needs to be more cognizant of approach clearances that differ from ATIS advertised approaches. I have had this happen more than once in the last month at mco. This controller error adds to the already high crew workload during the approach phase of the flight.supplemental information from acn 738372: while being vectored for a visual approach to runway 18R at mco; I inadvertently deselected the approach control frequency in use. Once I discovered that we no longer had the correct frequency selected; I returned to approach control. We received clearance for a visual approach to runway 18R and were switched to the tower. By this time; we were too high to make a stabilized approach; so I informed tower that we were going to go-around. We received vectors for another approach and landed uneventfully. Minor complicating factors were: deviations around a rain shower and a change of runway which required changing the localizer frequencies. This error was entirely my fault. ATC handling before and after were excellent; and the first officer's performance was superb throughout. Increased vigilance by the pilot monitoring (me; in this case) to ensure that the correct frequency is selected.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CREW RPTS CONFLICTING RWY ASSIGNMENTS BY MCO TRACON; AND A GO AROUND CAUSED BY A CREW INDUCED LOST COM AND THE RESULTING LATE APCH CLRNC.

Narrative: DURING APPROACH CONTROL VECTORS TO MCO; WE RECEIVED CONFLICTING APPROACH/RWY ASSIGNMENTS. THE FIRST CONTROLLER TOLD US TO EXPECT AN APPROACH TO RWY 36R (EVEN THOUGH ATIS ADVERTISED LANDING SOUTH); WE ASSUMED IT WAS DUE TO POSSIBLE CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY DEVELOPING NORTH OF THE AIRPORT AS THE LEESE ARRIVAL WAS IMPACTED BY STORMS. UPON HANDOFF TO THE NEXT CONTROLLER; WE WERE TOLD THE PREVIOUS CONTROLLER WAS INCORRECT AND THAT WE WOULD BE LANDING ON RWY 18R. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A CLEARANCE TO FLY TO THE ORL VOR AND DESCEND TO 4000 FT. I COMPLETED THOSE ACTIONS AND ASKED THE CAPTAIN TO REQUEST A LOWER ALTITUDE. WHILE WAITING FOR HIM TO MAKE THAT REQUEST; I HEARD THE TOWER CONTROLLER ISSUE A LANDING CLEARANCE OVER THE RADIO. THE CAPTAIN HAD CHANGED FROM THE LAST APPROACH CONTROLLER FREQUENCY TO TOWER FREQUENCY BEFORE BEING INSTRUCTED TO DO SO. AFTER GOING BACK TO APPROACH; WE WERE GIVEN A LOWER ALTITUDE FOLLOWED BY A CLEARANCE FOR A VISUAL APPROACH TO RWY 18R. AS PILOT FLYING; I ATTEMPTED TO CONFIGURE THE AIRCRAFT FOR A STABILIZED APPROACH; BUT REALIZED THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE. I DIRECTED A GO-AROUND. WE EXECUTED THE GO-AROUND AND SUBSEQUENT APPROACH AND LANDING TO RWY 17R UNEVENTFULLY. I BELIEVE INCREASED VIGILANCE BY BOTH PILOTS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FREQUENCY ERROR. I ALSO BELIEVE I SHOULD HAVE CONFIGURED THE AIRCRAFT EARLIER AND THE GO-AROUND MAY HAVE BEEN AVOIDED EVEN WITH THE FREQUENCY CONFUSION. APPROACH CONTROL NEEDS TO BE MORE COGNIZANT OF APPROACH CLEARANCES THAT DIFFER FROM ATIS ADVERTISED APPROACHES. I HAVE HAD THIS HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE IN THE LAST MONTH AT MCO. THIS CONTROLLER ERROR ADDS TO THE ALREADY HIGH CREW WORKLOAD DURING THE APPROACH PHASE OF THE FLIGHT.SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 738372: WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APPROACH TO RWY 18R AT MCO; I INADVERTENTLY DESELECTED THE APPROACH CONTROL FREQUENCY IN USE. ONCE I DISCOVERED THAT WE NO LONGER HAD THE CORRECT FREQUENCY SELECTED; I RETURNED TO APPROACH CONTROL. WE RECEIVED CLEARANCE FOR A VISUAL APPROACH TO RWY 18R AND WERE SWITCHED TO THE TOWER. BY THIS TIME; WE WERE TOO HIGH TO MAKE A STABILIZED APPROACH; SO I INFORMED TOWER THAT WE WERE GOING TO GO-AROUND. WE RECEIVED VECTORS FOR ANOTHER APPROACH AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. MINOR COMPLICATING FACTORS WERE: DEVIATIONS AROUND A RAIN SHOWER AND A CHANGE OF RWY WHICH REQUIRED CHANGING THE LOCALIZER FREQUENCIES. THIS ERROR WAS ENTIRELY MY FAULT. ATC HANDLING BEFORE AND AFTER WERE EXCELLENT; AND THE FIRST OFFICER'S PERFORMANCE WAS SUPERB THROUGHOUT. INCREASED VIGILANCE BY THE PILOT MONITORING (ME; IN THIS CASE) TO ENSURE THAT THE CORRECT FREQUENCY IS SELECTED.

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.