Narrative:

On arrival into iah; we were told by approach to expect runway 26R and programmed the FMS and set rmus to the ILS 26R. Below 10;000 ft; we were given vectors and told to now expect 27. We again changed the FMS and rmus for 27; and can see the airport ahead and to the right - we were perhaps 20 miles out; at 3-4000 feet. Approach then changed our runway again to 26L; with a right turn and approach clearance. The first officer was the pilot monitoring and was doing a good job of helping me keep up with the rapid changes with FMS programming and rmu frequency changes; especially considering this is his first IOE trip. We got the FMS programmed for 26L but neglected to set the rmu to the 26L localizer; so when I received an approach clearance; I armed the localizer/GS but it was still set to 110.9 for runway 27. Approach and I caught the error simultaneously; as I noticed the aircraft crossing the 26L final course I turned off the autopilot and lined up with 26L; as approach called us and gave us a new heading of 290 to rejoin the 26L localizer. With high workload training IOE environment; coupled with two runway changes from ATC; I was simply task saturated and failed to crosscheck and verify my rmu was tuned to the correct localizer. ATC was really a threat to us - with each runway change comes a change in the FMS transition (which comes with its own threat of double waypoints i.e. Double domno etc) a change in the bottom altitude of the opd STAR (a major threat) and a change in localizer frequency. Coupled with my high workload and my trainee first officer's developing skill of monitor/crosscheck; we missed one localizer frequency change. The result was flying through the assigned approach course. I can further refine my own skills of monitor/crosscheck; and further develop my ability to handle high workload situations. In retrospect; given the training environment and associated workload; I should have declined the runway change (or at least the second one) and simply insisted to fly what we had planned. I did not decline the changes out of a desire to work with ATC; assuming they have a valid reason for so many changes.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Captain reported a track deviation occurred following multiple runway changes on arrival into IAH.

Narrative: On arrival into IAH; we were told by Approach to expect Runway 26R and programmed the FMS and set RMUs to the ILS 26R. Below 10;000 ft; we were given vectors and told to now expect 27. We again changed the FMS and RMUs for 27; and can see the airport ahead and to the right - we were perhaps 20 miles out; at 3-4000 feet. Approach then changed our runway again to 26L; with a right turn and approach clearance. The First Officer was the Pilot Monitoring and was doing a good job of helping me keep up with the rapid changes with FMS programming and RMU frequency changes; especially considering this is his first IOE trip. We got the FMS programmed for 26L but neglected to set the RMU to the 26L localizer; so when I received an approach clearance; I armed the LOC/GS but it was still set to 110.9 for Runway 27. Approach and I caught the error simultaneously; as I noticed the aircraft crossing the 26L final course I turned off the autopilot and lined up with 26L; as Approach called us and gave us a new heading of 290 to rejoin the 26L localizer. With high workload training IOE environment; coupled with two runway changes from ATC; I was simply task saturated and failed to crosscheck and verify my RMU was tuned to the correct localizer. ATC was really a threat to us - with each runway change comes a change in the FMS transition (which comes with its own threat of double waypoints i.e. double DOMNO etc) a change in the bottom altitude of the OPD STAR (a major threat) and a change in localizer frequency. Coupled with my high workload and my trainee First Officer's developing skill of monitor/crosscheck; we missed one localizer frequency change. The result was flying through the assigned approach course. I can further refine my own skills of monitor/crosscheck; and further develop my ability to handle high workload situations. In retrospect; given the training environment and associated workload; I should have declined the runway change (or at least the second one) and simply insisted to fly what we had planned. I did not decline the changes out of a desire to work with ATC; assuming they have a valid reason for so many changes.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.