MD80 is confused regarding conflicting landing runway assignments from D21 TRACON versus dtw tower.

Attributes
ACN	595898
Time
Date	200310
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dtw.airport
State Reference	MI
Altitude	msl single value : 6000
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : d21.tracon tower : dtw.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : dtw.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	595898
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial
ASRS Report	595896
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : tcas other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Miss Distance	horizontal : 6000 vertical : 3000
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Inter Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

On approach to dtw, we were cleared for runway 22R visual. Turning crosswind, approach asked us if we would like runway 22L. Since runway 22L was closer to our gate and a shorter taxi, we said ok. Approach turned us to an intercept course and cleared us to 3500 ft. We called the field and were cleared for the visual to runway 22L. We were lined up with runway 22L at tower contact and tower told us cleared to land runway 21L. We questioned tower as to runway 21L or runway 22L. Tower said runway 21L. So we changed and landed runway 21L. Both the first officer and I feel sure that approach control cleared us for runway 22L. We think the handoff between approach control and tower was where the miscom occurred. There was no conflicting traffic. Supplemental information from acn 595874: on a 140 degree heading for an expected visual to runway 22R, received an RA from traffic at 12 O'clock position. Complied with RA. After maneuver was completed, returned to altitude (6000 ft). Vectored for a visual to runway 21L without further incident.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 IS CONFUSED REGARDING CONFLICTING LNDG RWY ASSIGNMENTS FROM D21 TRACON VERSUS DTW TWR.

Narrative: ON APCH TO DTW, WE WERE CLRED FOR RWY 22R VISUAL. TURNING XWIND, APCH ASKED US IF WE WOULD LIKE RWY 22L. SINCE RWY 22L WAS CLOSER TO OUR GATE AND A SHORTER TAXI, WE SAID OK. APCH TURNED US TO AN INTERCEPT COURSE AND CLRED US TO 3500 FT. WE CALLED THE FIELD AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 22L. WE WERE LINED UP WITH RWY 22L AT TWR CONTACT AND TWR TOLD US CLRED TO LAND RWY 21L. WE QUESTIONED TWR AS TO RWY 21L OR RWY 22L. TWR SAID RWY 21L. SO WE CHANGED AND LANDED RWY 21L. BOTH THE FO AND I FEEL SURE THAT APCH CTL CLRED US FOR RWY 22L. WE THINK THE HDOF BTWN APCH CTL AND TWR WAS WHERE THE MISCOM OCCURRED. THERE WAS NO CONFLICTING TFC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 595874: ON A 140 DEG HDG FOR AN EXPECTED VISUAL TO RWY 22R, RECEIVED AN RA FROM TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK POS. COMPLIED WITH RA. AFTER MANEUVER WAS COMPLETED, RETURNED TO ALT (6000 FT). VECTORED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 21L WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT.

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.