Narrative:

After switching from mem center to approach control; the controller told us to 'expect' runway 36L for landing. I briefed the visual approach to runway 36L and the captain entered runway 36L in the FMS. After switching to the final approach controller; we began to get references to an airbus in front of us and two speed reductions for spacing. When asked if we had the airport in sight; the captain responded that we did and the controller cleared us for a visual approach. I do not recall the clearance being runway specific. When switched to tower; we were asked to switch to runway 36R and at that point we were at about 1200 ft AGL and we told the controller that we could not sidestep. At that point; what sounded like a tower supervisor told us to cancel our landing clearance and maintain runway heading and climb to 2000 ft MSL. We complied and he went on to tell us that runway 36L was closed and we had been cleared for a visual to runway 36R behind the heavy airbus. We had seen the airbus in question; but never called the traffic 'in sight.' our last ATIS had runway 36L in operation; but apparently it had been closed during the ATIS update. We were vectored for a visual to runway 36R and landed uneventfully. Upon landing; the captain called the tower and discussed the issue with the supervisor. He explained that the 'expect visual to runway 36L' information from the initial approach controller had not been passed to the final controller and there had been a miscommunication between us and the tower about our clearance to land on runway 36R. He said further; that no breach of safety had occurred. We do not believe we violated any far's or compromised safety. We just had to go around and shoot another visual approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 FLT CREW IS CLEARED FOR VISUAL RWY 36L AT MEM AND IS ISSUED GAR WHEN UNABLE TO ACCEPT CHANGE TO RWY 36R.

Narrative: AFTER SWITCHING FROM MEM CTR TO APCH CTL; THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'EXPECT' RWY 36L FOR LNDG. I BRIEFED THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 36L AND THE CAPT ENTERED RWY 36L IN THE FMS. AFTER SWITCHING TO THE FINAL APCH CTLR; WE BEGAN TO GET REFERENCES TO AN AIRBUS IN FRONT OF US AND TWO SPD REDUCTIONS FOR SPACING. WHEN ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT; THE CAPT RESPONDED THAT WE DID AND THE CTLR CLEARED US FOR A VISUAL APCH. I DO NOT RECALL THE CLEARANCE BEING RWY SPECIFIC. WHEN SWITCHED TO TWR; WE WERE ASKED TO SWITCH TO RWY 36R AND AT THAT POINT WE WERE AT ABOUT 1200 FT AGL AND WE TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE COULD NOT SIDESTEP. AT THAT POINT; WHAT SOUNDED LIKE A TWR SUPVR TOLD US TO CANCEL OUR LNDG CLEARANCE AND MAINTAIN RWY HDG AND CLB TO 2000 FT MSL. WE COMPLIED AND HE WENT ON TO TELL US THAT RWY 36L WAS CLOSED AND WE HAD BEEN CLEARED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 36R BEHIND THE HVY AIRBUS. WE HAD SEEN THE AIRBUS IN QUESTION; BUT NEVER CALLED THE TFC 'IN SIGHT.' OUR LAST ATIS HAD RWY 36L IN OPERATION; BUT APPARENTLY IT HAD BEEN CLOSED DURING THE ATIS UPDATE. WE WERE VECTORED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 36R AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. UPON LNDG; THE CAPT CALLED THE TWR AND DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH THE SUPVR. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE 'EXPECT VISUAL TO RWY 36L' INFO FROM THE INITIAL APCH CTLR HAD NOT BEEN PASSED TO THE FINAL CTLR AND THERE HAD BEEN A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN US AND THE TWR ABOUT OUR CLEARANCE TO LAND ON RWY 36R. HE SAID FURTHER; THAT NO BREACH OF SAFETY HAD OCCURRED. WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE VIOLATED ANY FAR'S OR COMPROMISED SAFETY. WE JUST HAD TO GO AROUND AND SHOOT ANOTHER VISUAL APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.