Narrative:

The following occurred while on the civet 5 arrival to lax. Our ATC clearance was to descend via the civet arrival. ATC had not yet assigned a runway; and to load this procedure into the FMS a runway selection is required. We loaded the arrival and runway 25R since this was the preferred runway and I had been to lax several days earlier and this was the runway we used then. Nearing civet intersection; ATC informed us we would be landing runway 24R. I instructed the first officer to change the runway selection in the FMS to runway 24R. He made the change and advised me so. Within about one minute; I began to verify the altitude restrictions on the arrival chart and check them in the FMS. I immediately noticed that while the runway and approach had been changed; the arrival transition between civet and the runway 24R were not correct in the FMS. The transition to the runway 25R approach were still loaded even though the runway 24R approach was now part of the active flight plan. At about the same time ATC stated that it looked like we were heading for runway 25R and questioned us. When the first officer changed the runway and approach from runway 25R to runway 24R; he didn't deselect the arrival and later reinsert the arrival with the new runway assignment. This is required on this aircraft to truly change the arrival routing to reflect the desired runway's transition. There was a bit of confusion in the cockpit at this point and while we were correcting the issue in the FMS; ATC assigned a vector to intercept the runway 24R localizer. While we were correcting the FMS issue; I tuned the runway 24R ILS frequency; but must not have swapped frequencies on navigation and still had the runway 25R ILS frequency tuned. We were intercepting the runway 25R localizer and ATC issued another vector to get us back toward runway 24R localizer. By now we had things straightened out in the cockpit and were stabilized on course for runway 24R. There was never any conflict with other traffic during this event. While we as a crew made several mistakes during this event; there are two other areas that led to this occurrence: ATC seems to assign a runway change at a late stage on this arrival (the runway was assigned near civet intersection in this case; which is very near where the transitions to the different approach courses begin). The FMS will not allow you to load this arrival from the database unless you select a runway first. (ZLA will not assign a runway; but will clear you to descend via the arrival; so you have to select a runway. This can lead to a situation like the above if you guess wrong. The runway assignments are handled by socal approach.) reasonable advance notice of runway assignment will greatly reduce the possibility of something like this happening. My first officer is an experienced pilot; but new to corporate aviation. He is type-rated and has been flying this airplane for several months and has progressed well; which is why I thought he would be able to make the change in the FMS correctly. I will be more vigilant no matter who I am paired with to avoid these type of situations in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A FALCON 20 ON CIVET ARR TO LAX GOT A RWY CHANGE. THE FO REPROGRAMMED THE FMC IMPROPERLY AND THEY DEVIATED FROM THE CHARTED ARR TRACK.

Narrative: THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED WHILE ON THE CIVET 5 ARR TO LAX. OUR ATC CLRNC WAS TO DSND VIA THE CIVET ARR. ATC HAD NOT YET ASSIGNED A RWY; AND TO LOAD THIS PROC INTO THE FMS A RWY SELECTION IS REQUIRED. WE LOADED THE ARR AND RWY 25R SINCE THIS WAS THE PREFERRED RWY AND I HAD BEEN TO LAX SEVERAL DAYS EARLIER AND THIS WAS THE RWY WE USED THEN. NEARING CIVET INTXN; ATC INFORMED US WE WOULD BE LNDG RWY 24R. I INSTRUCTED THE FO TO CHANGE THE RWY SELECTION IN THE FMS TO RWY 24R. HE MADE THE CHANGE AND ADVISED ME SO. WITHIN ABOUT ONE MINUTE; I BEGAN TO VERIFY THE ALT RESTRICTIONS ON THE ARR CHART AND CHECK THEM IN THE FMS. I IMMEDIATELY NOTICED THAT WHILE THE RWY AND APCH HAD BEEN CHANGED; THE ARR TRANSITION BETWEEN CIVET AND THE RWY 24R WERE NOT CORRECT IN THE FMS. THE TRANSITION TO THE RWY 25R APCH WERE STILL LOADED EVEN THOUGH THE RWY 24R APCH WAS NOW PART OF THE ACTIVE FLT PLAN. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME ATC STATED THAT IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE HEADING FOR RWY 25R AND QUESTIONED US. WHEN THE FO CHANGED THE RWY AND APCH FROM RWY 25R TO RWY 24R; HE DIDN'T DESELECT THE ARR AND LATER REINSERT THE ARR WITH THE NEW RWY ASSIGNMENT. THIS IS REQUIRED ON THIS ACFT TO TRULY CHANGE THE ARR ROUTING TO REFLECT THE DESIRED RWY'S TRANSITION. THERE WAS A BIT OF CONFUSION IN THE COCKPIT AT THIS POINT AND WHILE WE WERE CORRECTING THE ISSUE IN THE FMS; ATC ASSIGNED A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 24R LOCALIZER. WHILE WE WERE CORRECTING THE FMS ISSUE; I TUNED THE RWY 24R ILS FREQUENCY; BUT MUST NOT HAVE SWAPPED FREQUENCIES ON NAV AND STILL HAD THE RWY 25R ILS FREQ TUNED. WE WERE INTERCEPTING THE RWY 25R LOCALIZER AND ATC ISSUED ANOTHER VECTOR TO GET US BACK TOWARD RWY 24R LOCALIZER. BY NOW WE HAD THINGS STRAIGHTENED OUT IN THE COCKPIT AND WERE STABILIZED ON COURSE FOR RWY 24R. THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONFLICT WITH OTHER TFC DURING THIS EVENT. WHILE WE AS A CREW MADE SEVERAL MISTAKES DURING THIS EVENT; THERE ARE TWO OTHER AREAS THAT LED TO THIS OCCURRENCE: ATC SEEMS TO ASSIGN A RWY CHANGE AT A LATE STAGE ON THIS ARR (THE RWY WAS ASSIGNED NEAR CIVET INTXN IN THIS CASE; WHICH IS VERY NEAR WHERE THE TRANSITIONS TO THE DIFFERENT APCH COURSES BEGIN). THE FMS WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO LOAD THIS ARR FROM THE DATABASE UNLESS YOU SELECT A RWY FIRST. (ZLA WILL NOT ASSIGN A RWY; BUT WILL CLEAR YOU TO DSND VIA THE ARR; SO YOU HAVE TO SELECT A RWY. THIS CAN LEAD TO A SITUATION LIKE THE ABOVE IF YOU GUESS WRONG. THE RWY ASSIGNMENTS ARE HANDLED BY SOCAL APCH.) REASONABLE ADVANCE NOTICE OF RWY ASSIGNMENT WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENING. MY FO IS AN EXPERIENCED PLT; BUT NEW TO CORPORATE AVIATION. HE IS TYPE-RATED AND HAS BEEN FLYING THIS AIRPLANE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND HAS PROGRESSED WELL; WHICH IS WHY I THOUGHT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CHANGE IN THE FMS CORRECTLY. I WILL BE MORE VIGILANT NO MATTER WHO I AM PAIRED WITH TO AVOID THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.