Narrative:

We were cleared to descend on the civet arrival planning runway 24R. We had already been given one speed restr to 250 KTS. We were proceeding direct to civet within about 10 NM when we were switched to runway 25R. We had anticipated this and had briefed it and had loaded it into route 2. The first officer was flying; so I activated the change and verified we were direct civet for runway 25R. We were also told to look for traffic; a B737 approaching from the south passing ahead for the north complex. We were restr to 15000 ft because of the traffic putting us behind in the descent profile. At this time ATC gave us a further speed reduction of 210 KTS. Since I was watching the traffic; the first officer changed the speed in his CDU. He was still in route 1; and somehow in the process of making the speed change; he activated runway 24R. Right at civet; he noticed the error; I re-activated runway 25R and had us direct to the next fix. We may have gotten 1 mi north of the track. ATC called to verify that we were for the south complex. I acknowledged affirmative and stated that we were correcting. The rest of the approach and landing were normal (except for the difficulty of making the descent). The reason for the safety report is twofold. 1) to report deviation. 2) to report even with a proper briefing and preparation; ATC is asking too much of inbound flts. We needed 3 sets of eyes to watch for the traffic; make changes to the FMC and also fly the aircraft with numerous changes. If this were an isolated incident; it would be different; but unfortunately this is more the norm; not the exception.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 FLT CREW HAS A TRACK HDG DEV DURING CIVET ARR TO LAX.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED TO DSND ON THE CIVET ARR PLANNING RWY 24R. WE HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN ONE SPD RESTR TO 250 KTS. WE WERE PROCEEDING DIRECT TO CIVET WITHIN ABOUT 10 NM WHEN WE WERE SWITCHED TO RWY 25R. WE HAD ANTICIPATED THIS AND HAD BRIEFED IT AND HAD LOADED IT INTO RTE 2. THE FO WAS FLYING; SO I ACTIVATED THE CHANGE AND VERIFIED WE WERE DIRECT CIVET FOR RWY 25R. WE WERE ALSO TOLD TO LOOK FOR TFC; A B737 APCHING FROM THE S PASSING AHEAD FOR THE N COMPLEX. WE WERE RESTR TO 15000 FT BECAUSE OF THE TFC PUTTING US BEHIND IN THE DSCNT PROFILE. AT THIS TIME ATC GAVE US A FURTHER SPD REDUCTION OF 210 KTS. SINCE I WAS WATCHING THE TFC; THE FO CHANGED THE SPD IN HIS CDU. HE WAS STILL IN RTE 1; AND SOMEHOW IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE SPD CHANGE; HE ACTIVATED RWY 24R. RIGHT AT CIVET; HE NOTICED THE ERROR; I RE-ACTIVATED RWY 25R AND HAD US DIRECT TO THE NEXT FIX. WE MAY HAVE GOTTEN 1 MI N OF THE TRACK. ATC CALLED TO VERIFY THAT WE WERE FOR THE S COMPLEX. I ACKNOWLEDGED AFFIRMATIVE AND STATED THAT WE WERE CORRECTING. THE REST OF THE APCH AND LNDG WERE NORMAL (EXCEPT FOR THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING THE DSCNT). THE REASON FOR THE SAFETY RPT IS TWOFOLD. 1) TO RPT DEV. 2) TO RPT EVEN WITH A PROPER BRIEFING AND PREPARATION; ATC IS ASKING TOO MUCH OF INBOUND FLTS. WE NEEDED 3 SETS OF EYES TO WATCH FOR THE TFC; MAKE CHANGES TO THE FMC AND ALSO FLY THE ACFT WITH NUMEROUS CHANGES. IF THIS WERE AN ISOLATED INCIDENT; IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT; BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS MORE THE NORM; NOT THE EXCEPTION.

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.