Narrative:

We were cleared to descend via the civet arrival to lax. At den we had programmed runway 25R for arrival and as we approached gramm intersection we were cleared to descend via the civet arrival to runway 24R. In the course of maneuvering; we had 2 leveloffs for traffic conflicts (the last being a C172) and did not get the FMS changed. In the course of verifying the correct altitudes for each descent point; ATC advised we were south of course and gave us a 10 degree right course correction to intercept the runway 24R localizer; which we did without further event. The rest of the approach and landing were accomplished normally. The multiple approachs and variations on each approach along with the distrs of the descent create a climate favorable for these frustrating situations. Supplemental information from acn 714534: approaching civet we were given 2 intermediate leveloffs and a speed reduction. Socal control then called out VFR traffic approaching; altitude unknown. We both went eyes out of the cockpit to look for the traffic. I finally spotted a C150 passing 500 ft below and less than 1 mi. By this time we were past the point where the civet approach splits to go to separate runways. Right after I called the traffic and gave his altitude; socal told us we were south of the course leading to runway 24R and to come right to join the approach. Socal should have given the landing runway sooner but we should have asked sooner. Just as it's been emphasized to check the FMS for the proper departure runway at dfw and atl; with the civet and other approachs into lax; you need to confirm the landing runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 INBOUND TO LAX ON THE CIVET ARR DEVIATED FROM CHARTED TRACK WHEN THEY GOT A RWY CHANGE AND TA AT NEARLY THE SAME TIME.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED TO DSND VIA THE CIVET ARR TO LAX. AT DEN WE HAD PROGRAMMED RWY 25R FOR ARR AND AS WE APCHED GRAMM INTXN WE WERE CLRED TO DSND VIA THE CIVET ARR TO RWY 24R. IN THE COURSE OF MANEUVERING; WE HAD 2 LEVELOFFS FOR TFC CONFLICTS (THE LAST BEING A C172) AND DID NOT GET THE FMS CHANGED. IN THE COURSE OF VERIFYING THE CORRECT ALTS FOR EACH DSCNT POINT; ATC ADVISED WE WERE S OF COURSE AND GAVE US A 10 DEG R COURSE CORRECTION TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 24R LOC; WHICH WE DID WITHOUT FURTHER EVENT. THE REST OF THE APCH AND LNDG WERE ACCOMPLISHED NORMALLY. THE MULTIPLE APCHS AND VARIATIONS ON EACH APCH ALONG WITH THE DISTRS OF THE DSCNT CREATE A CLIMATE FAVORABLE FOR THESE FRUSTRATING SITUATIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 714534: APCHING CIVET WE WERE GIVEN 2 INTERMEDIATE LEVELOFFS AND A SPD REDUCTION. SOCAL CTL THEN CALLED OUT VFR TFC APCHING; ALT UNKNOWN. WE BOTH WENT EYES OUT OF THE COCKPIT TO LOOK FOR THE TFC. I FINALLY SPOTTED A C150 PASSING 500 FT BELOW AND LESS THAN 1 MI. BY THIS TIME WE WERE PAST THE POINT WHERE THE CIVET APCH SPLITS TO GO TO SEPARATE RWYS. RIGHT AFTER I CALLED THE TFC AND GAVE HIS ALT; SOCAL TOLD US WE WERE S OF THE COURSE LEADING TO RWY 24R AND TO COME R TO JOIN THE APCH. SOCAL SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE LNDG RWY SOONER BUT WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED SOONER. JUST AS IT'S BEEN EMPHASIZED TO CHK THE FMS FOR THE PROPER DEP RWY AT DFW AND ATL; WITH THE CIVET AND OTHER APCHS INTO LAX; YOU NEED TO CONFIRM THE LNDG RWY.

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.