Narrative:

We were at FL350 on a flight from aspen, co, to sfo when ZOA revised our routing to 'cleared direct to manteca, madwin 3 arrival, maintain 350.' upon checking our sfo arrival plates and finding no madwin 3 arrival we informed center of same and were cleared 'direct manteca direct sunol.' we read this back. Upon arrival to vicinity of sunol intersection bay gave us a heading and altitude for 'vector to final.' bay gave us several heading vectors and altitude changes, which we complied with. We were at 3000' when bay told us to intercept runway 27R. I heard '27R' and thought the controller meant runway 28R. My copilot read back, 'intercept 28R.' no response from controller. Our current heading was taking us directly toward the center span of the san mateo bridge which looked like a normal vector for sfo. 30 seconds or so passed and the controller requested a right turn to 040 degrees and asked us why we flew through the runway 27R localizer. We informed him that our destination was sfo. After several turns he worked us into the sfo arrs. There were no evasive actions taken. I believe what caused the problem started with ZOA when they somehow were informed that our destination was oak. The entire problem could have been averted if center would have stated our revised route by saying: 'you are cleared to oakland by direct manteca, madwin 3 arrival.' we would have realized the controller's mistake at that point. The name of oakland was never used during any transmission. We, as a crew, could have queried bay approach about intercepting runway 27R. Instead of assuming his error. Accurate communication will aid all of us. Fortunately the only effect of this these errors was approximately 6 mins extra flight time. I know both of us will be more diligent in questioning the controllers in the future. Supplemental information from acn 93143: next bay said, 'turn right 240 degrees, descend and maintain 3000 to intercept 27R localizer.' I misunderstood him to say '28R localizer.' our heading and position was very similar to a typical sfo arrival. Approximately 30 seconds passed and the controller requested a right turn 040 degrees and asked if I planned to land on runway 27R. The entire problem stemmed from miscom. In the future I feel this problem could easily be avoided by more accurate clrncs and readbacks. Additionally, the fact I had no madwin 3 arrival for sfo should have been a tip off something was wrong. All in all this turned out to be an excellent lesson which resulted in only a loss of 6 mins flight time, but could have been very serious had we been in IMC. I know my captain and I will be more cautious in effective communications in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT WAS BEING VECTORED FOR APCH TO OAK. ACTUALLY WANTED TO LAND SFO. FLT CREW MISINTERPRETED CLRNC FOR INTERCEPT OF RWY 27R LOCALIZER AS INTERCEPT RWY 28R LOCALIZER. ATC CORRECTED. FLT PLAN HAD WRONG DESTINATION.

Narrative: WE WERE AT FL350 ON A FLT FROM ASPEN, CO, TO SFO WHEN ZOA REVISED OUR ROUTING TO 'CLRED DIRECT TO MANTECA, MADWIN 3 ARR, MAINTAIN 350.' UPON CHKING OUR SFO ARR PLATES AND FINDING NO MADWIN 3 ARR WE INFORMED CENTER OF SAME AND WERE CLRED 'DIRECT MANTECA DIRECT SUNOL.' WE READ THIS BACK. UPON ARR TO VICINITY OF SUNOL INTXN BAY GAVE US A HDG AND ALT FOR 'VECTOR TO FINAL.' BAY GAVE US SEVERAL HDG VECTORS AND ALT CHANGES, WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH. WE WERE AT 3000' WHEN BAY TOLD US TO INTERCEPT RWY 27R. I HEARD '27R' AND THOUGHT THE CTLR MEANT RWY 28R. MY COPLT READ BACK, 'INTERCEPT 28R.' NO RESPONSE FROM CTLR. OUR CURRENT HDG WAS TAKING US DIRECTLY TOWARD THE CENTER SPAN OF THE SAN MATEO BRIDGE WHICH LOOKED LIKE A NORMAL VECTOR FOR SFO. 30 SECS OR SO PASSED AND THE CTLR REQUESTED A RIGHT TURN TO 040 DEGS AND ASKED US WHY WE FLEW THROUGH THE RWY 27R LOC. WE INFORMED HIM THAT OUR DEST WAS SFO. AFTER SEVERAL TURNS HE WORKED US INTO THE SFO ARRS. THERE WERE NO EVASIVE ACTIONS TAKEN. I BELIEVE WHAT CAUSED THE PROB STARTED WITH ZOA WHEN THEY SOMEHOW WERE INFORMED THAT OUR DEST WAS OAK. THE ENTIRE PROB COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED IF CENTER WOULD HAVE STATED OUR REVISED ROUTE BY SAYING: 'YOU ARE CLRED TO OAKLAND BY DIRECT MANTECA, MADWIN 3 ARR.' WE WOULD HAVE REALIZED THE CTLR'S MISTAKE AT THAT POINT. THE NAME OF OAKLAND WAS NEVER USED DURING ANY XMISSION. WE, AS A CREW, COULD HAVE QUERIED BAY APCH ABOUT INTERCEPTING RWY 27R. INSTEAD OF ASSUMING HIS ERROR. ACCURATE COM WILL AID ALL OF US. FORTUNATELY THE ONLY EFFECT OF THIS THESE ERRORS WAS APPROX 6 MINS EXTRA FLT TIME. I KNOW BOTH OF US WILL BE MORE DILIGENT IN QUESTIONING THE CTLRS IN THE FUTURE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 93143: NEXT BAY SAID, 'TURN RIGHT 240 DEGS, DSND AND MAINTAIN 3000 TO INTERCEPT 27R LOC.' I MISUNDERSTOOD HIM TO SAY '28R LOC.' OUR HDG AND POS WAS VERY SIMILAR TO A TYPICAL SFO ARR. APPROX 30 SECS PASSED AND THE CTLR REQUESTED A RIGHT TURN 040 DEGS AND ASKED IF I PLANNED TO LAND ON RWY 27R. THE ENTIRE PROB STEMMED FROM MISCOM. IN THE FUTURE I FEEL THIS PROB COULD EASILY BE AVOIDED BY MORE ACCURATE CLRNCS AND READBACKS. ADDITIONALLY, THE FACT I HAD NO MADWIN 3 ARR FOR SFO SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TIP OFF SOMETHING WAS WRONG. ALL IN ALL THIS TURNED OUT TO BE AN EXCELLENT LESSON WHICH RESULTED IN ONLY A LOSS OF 6 MINS FLT TIME, BUT COULD HAVE BEEN VERY SERIOUS HAD WE BEEN IN IMC. I KNOW MY CAPT AND I WILL BE MORE CAUTIOUS IN EFFECTIVE COMS IN THE FUTURE.

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