Narrative:

Flight from atl to iah apr/xx/97. When we contacted approach control at iah he assigned us 'runway 8,' not 'expect runway 8.' iah has separated parallel ILS's to runway 8 and runway 9, both of which were in use. After contacting the final controller west of the field he gave us a '070 heading to intercept localizer, cleared for the approach, contact tower.' when we contacted tower he cleared us to land 'runway 9.' this was the first mention of a runway assignment change, and we were tuned into the ILS runway 8. A little slow to realize what was happening the tower gave us a 110 degree heading to intercept the localizer. Apparently we had strayed through the runway 9 localizer. By now it was too difficult to change radios and mindset and we missed the approach. The errors here are both ours for not picking up the runway change and approach change from runway 8 to runway 9. When tower cleared us to land runway 9, our mindset was to land on runway 8. But ATC is also at fault in that approach never advised us that we were changing to a different runway or approach, something that they normally do. Good heads up by tower realizing what the problem was and saving us from further error. One other factor that contributed to my being slow to realize the runway change was the fact that the first officer was new (less than 90 hours in type) with little recent flying time (about 6 yrs as flight engineer) and required a lot of my attention during the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG GIVEN CLRNC FOR APCH AND HAD BEEN ASSIGNED ILS RWY 8. SWITCHING TO FINAL CTLR, HE CLRS FLT FOR APCH, BUT FAILS TO MENTION WHICH ILS OR WHICH RWY. UNKNOWN TO THE FLC THERE WAS A RWY CHANGE AND THEY WERE ADVISED OF SAME OUTSIDE THE LOM WHEN CLRED TO LAND RWY 9.

Narrative: FLT FROM ATL TO IAH APR/XX/97. WHEN WE CONTACTED APCH CTL AT IAH HE ASSIGNED US 'RWY 8,' NOT 'EXPECT RWY 8.' IAH HAS SEPARATED PARALLEL ILS'S TO RWY 8 AND RWY 9, BOTH OF WHICH WERE IN USE. AFTER CONTACTING THE FINAL CTLR W OF THE FIELD HE GAVE US A '070 HDG TO INTERCEPT LOC, CLRED FOR THE APCH, CONTACT TWR.' WHEN WE CONTACTED TWR HE CLRED US TO LAND 'RWY 9.' THIS WAS THE FIRST MENTION OF A RWY ASSIGNMENT CHANGE, AND WE WERE TUNED INTO THE ILS RWY 8. A LITTLE SLOW TO REALIZE WHAT WAS HAPPENING THE TWR GAVE US A 110 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. APPARENTLY WE HAD STRAYED THROUGH THE RWY 9 LOC. BY NOW IT WAS TOO DIFFICULT TO CHANGE RADIOS AND MINDSET AND WE MISSED THE APCH. THE ERRORS HERE ARE BOTH OURS FOR NOT PICKING UP THE RWY CHANGE AND APCH CHANGE FROM RWY 8 TO RWY 9. WHEN TWR CLRED US TO LAND RWY 9, OUR MINDSET WAS TO LAND ON RWY 8. BUT ATC IS ALSO AT FAULT IN THAT APCH NEVER ADVISED US THAT WE WERE CHANGING TO A DIFFERENT RWY OR APCH, SOMETHING THAT THEY NORMALLY DO. GOOD HEADS UP BY TWR REALIZING WHAT THE PROB WAS AND SAVING US FROM FURTHER ERROR. ONE OTHER FACTOR THAT CONTRIBUTED TO MY BEING SLOW TO REALIZE THE RWY CHANGE WAS THE FACT THAT THE FO WAS NEW (LESS THAN 90 HRS IN TYPE) WITH LITTLE RECENT FLYING TIME (ABOUT 6 YRS AS FE) AND REQUIRED A LOT OF MY ATTN DURING THE FLT.

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