Narrative:

We were running late about 40 mins from denver to los angeles. ZLA kept us high at civet FL220. We were filed for civet 4 arrival. We were handed to socal approach. Approach controller gave us different headings. Finally, we were instructed to follow mitts 1 arrival. Since we were inside mitts, we were given a heading to intercept localizer runway 24R. We requested approach for south complex, which was denied. However, approach cleared us for visual runway 24L almost 28 mi touchdown. Upon changing to the tower frequency, he cleared us to land on runway 24R. Although, after listening to the tower tapes, my first officer had read back the instructions as 'cleared to land on runway 24R,' we both missed it. As we touched down on runway 24L, tower instructed us to go around. It was too late. We were already stopping on the runway with no separation or safety compromised. Many factors contributed to this event: we were handled extremely poorly. The number of the traffic on the final approach seemed rather high. We were kept high and fast due to numerous crossing traffic. Approach and tower frequencys were cluttered. Tower did not use the right phraseology to specify the runway switch. We were lined up on runway 24L for 28 mi and nobody (approach or tower) said anything. I did not utilize my jump seat rider as part my crew members. He was not wearing a headset. Supplemental information from acn 422957: many factors contributed to this incident. The captain and myself were both tired. This was the third leg of the fifth and final day of our trip. When we landed in lax we had been on duty for 13 hours. Because of fatigue, we did not catch the runway change tower gave us. We had been lined up for runway 24L for 25 mi. This was the runway we were expecting to hear. Also, had the control tower used the phraseology 'sidestep 24R' or 'switch to 24R' we probably would have heard the runway change. Tower cleared 2 airplanes to cross runway 24L when we were on short final. We decided these aircraft would clear in time, but the spacing was closer than what is typical. Fatigue and scheduling pressures led to the decision not to go around, even though it did not 'feel right.' had just one of these chains of events been broken, this incident would have been avoided. I will make an extra effort to not 'pay lip service' to SOP callouts and ATC readbacks. Below 10000 ft, I will request jump seat riders to wear a headset so they can be included in the goings on.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A B757 LANDED ON THE WRONG PARALLEL RWY DUE TO A LACK OF CLR ATCT INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO LNDG.

Narrative: WE WERE RUNNING LATE ABOUT 40 MINS FROM DENVER TO LOS ANGELES. ZLA KEPT US HIGH AT CIVET FL220. WE WERE FILED FOR CIVET 4 ARR. WE WERE HANDED TO SOCAL APCH. APCH CTLR GAVE US DIFFERENT HDGS. FINALLY, WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW MITTS 1 ARR. SINCE WE WERE INSIDE MITTS, WE WERE GIVEN A HDG TO INTERCEPT LOC RWY 24R. WE REQUESTED APCH FOR S COMPLEX, WHICH WAS DENIED. HOWEVER, APCH CLRED US FOR VISUAL RWY 24L ALMOST 28 MI TOUCHDOWN. UPON CHANGING TO THE TWR FREQ, HE CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 24R. ALTHOUGH, AFTER LISTENING TO THE TWR TAPES, MY FO HAD READ BACK THE INSTRUCTIONS AS 'CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 24R,' WE BOTH MISSED IT. AS WE TOUCHED DOWN ON RWY 24L, TWR INSTRUCTED US TO GO AROUND. IT WAS TOO LATE. WE WERE ALREADY STOPPING ON THE RWY WITH NO SEPARATION OR SAFETY COMPROMISED. MANY FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS EVENT: WE WERE HANDLED EXTREMELY POORLY. THE NUMBER OF THE TFC ON THE FINAL APCH SEEMED RATHER HIGH. WE WERE KEPT HIGH AND FAST DUE TO NUMEROUS XING TFC. APCH AND TWR FREQS WERE CLUTTERED. TWR DID NOT USE THE RIGHT PHRASEOLOGY TO SPECIFY THE RWY SWITCH. WE WERE LINED UP ON RWY 24L FOR 28 MI AND NOBODY (APCH OR TWR) SAID ANYTHING. I DID NOT UTILIZE MY JUMP SEAT RIDER AS PART MY CREW MEMBERS. HE WAS NOT WEARING A HEADSET. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 422957: MANY FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCIDENT. THE CAPT AND MYSELF WERE BOTH TIRED. THIS WAS THE THIRD LEG OF THE FIFTH AND FINAL DAY OF OUR TRIP. WHEN WE LANDED IN LAX WE HAD BEEN ON DUTY FOR 13 HRS. BECAUSE OF FATIGUE, WE DID NOT CATCH THE RWY CHANGE TWR GAVE US. WE HAD BEEN LINED UP FOR RWY 24L FOR 25 MI. THIS WAS THE RWY WE WERE EXPECTING TO HEAR. ALSO, HAD THE CTL TWR USED THE PHRASEOLOGY 'SIDESTEP 24R' OR 'SWITCH TO 24R' WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HEARD THE RWY CHANGE. TWR CLRED 2 AIRPLANES TO CROSS RWY 24L WHEN WE WERE ON SHORT FINAL. WE DECIDED THESE ACFT WOULD CLR IN TIME, BUT THE SPACING WAS CLOSER THAN WHAT IS TYPICAL. FATIGUE AND SCHEDULING PRESSURES LED TO THE DECISION NOT TO GO AROUND, EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT 'FEEL RIGHT.' HAD JUST ONE OF THESE CHAINS OF EVENTS BEEN BROKEN, THIS INCIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. I WILL MAKE AN EXTRA EFFORT TO NOT 'PAY LIP SVC' TO SOP CALLOUTS AND ATC READBACKS. BELOW 10000 FT, I WILL REQUEST JUMP SEAT RIDERS TO WEAR A HEADSET SO THEY CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE GOINGS ON.

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.