Narrative:

On descent into den we were notified of our runway assignment; visual to runway 16L and the first officer was the PF. Approximately midfield downwind (heading 350 approximately 5 miles east of runway 17L) we were switched to the final approach controller and were given a runway change visual to runway 17R and instructed to descend from 11000 ft MSL to 7000 ft MSL and shortly after that heading 260. Shortly after that we were given heading 230 and cleared for the visual to runway 17R which put our course well inside the FAF (joule) and we were still at approximately 8000 ft MSL. We were high and I was helping the first officer configure the airplane for a steep approach. The first officer started to line up with the runway but it was not until about 3 miles from the runway did we realize the airplane was incorrectly lined up with runway 17L not the assigned runway 17R. The first officer started to maneuver the airplane over to runway 17R when the tower controller notified us that we were lined up with the wrong runway. The tower controller then cleared us to land on runway 17L. After clearing the runway I asked the controller if we needed to contact him about the incident when he stated that it was not necessary. As PIC I should have monitored the first officer's course position relative to our FMS; ILS CDI; and moving map to ensure that the aircraft was lined up with the correct runway. Additionally; as PIC I should not have accepted such a short approach in the first place as we hardly had enough time to load the approach in the FMS and did not have time to brief the approach which is our company procedure.supplemental information from acn 755803: on approach into den we were advised to expect runway 16L for a visual approach. At the last minute on a high downwind we were told that we will now be landing on runway 17R; which was a closer runway and would not give us much time to set up our navaids. But we said that would be ok. At this point we were only a few miles from the runway. We were then given a heading of 260 degrees and told to descend from 11000 ft MSL to 7000 ft MSL (1800 ft AGL). We then began to rush our descent as it appeared that the runway was very close. Our next assigned heading was 230 degrees and cleared for the visual. Our alignment was good for runway 17L and in thinking that it was runway 17L we continued the visual approach. At approximately 3 NM out I realized that it was the wrong runway and began a sidestep to the correct runway. ATC then advised me that it was ok if we wanted to land on runway 17L and cleared us to land on runway 17L. Upon landing ATC advised us that no action was necessary on their part or ours. I think multiple things went wrong on this approach. First of all we should not have accepted the visual to a runway that was close when we were high and had little time to set up for the approach. We should have also not jumped to the conclusion that the runway our vector set us up for was the correct runway. We could have used our instruments to tell us that we had the wrong runway. But we were so caught up in the fact that we were high that we were looking outside to correct our path. ATC could have also given us a better vector and not inside the outer marker at such a high altitude.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB170 FLT CREW IS ISSUED A RWY CHANGE FROM RWY 16L TO RWY 17R AT DEN WHILE ON HIGH DOWNWIND. FLT CREW LINES UP WITH RWY 17L BY MISTAKE AND IS CLRED TO LAND RWY 17L RATHER THAN SHIFT TO RWY 17R.

Narrative: ON DSCNT INTO DEN WE WERE NOTIFIED OF OUR RWY ASSIGNMENT; VISUAL TO RWY 16L AND THE FO WAS THE PF. APPROX MIDFIELD DOWNWIND (HDG 350 APPROX 5 MILES EAST OF RWY 17L) WE WERE SWITCHED TO THE FINAL APCH CTLR AND WERE GIVEN A RWY CHANGE VISUAL TO RWY 17R AND INSTRUCTED TO DSND FROM 11000 FT MSL TO 7000 FT MSL AND SHORTLY AFTER THAT HDG 260. SHORTLY AFTER THAT WE WERE GIVEN HDG 230 AND CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 17R WHICH PUT OUR COURSE WELL INSIDE THE FAF (JOULE) AND WE WERE STILL AT APPROX 8000 FT MSL. WE WERE HIGH AND I WAS HELPING THE FO CONFIGURE THE AIRPLANE FOR A STEEP APCH. THE FO STARTED TO LINE UP WITH THE RWY BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL ABOUT 3 MILES FROM THE RWY DID WE REALIZE THE AIRPLANE WAS INCORRECTLY LINED UP WITH RWY 17L NOT THE ASSIGNED RWY 17R. THE FO STARTED TO MANEUVER THE AIRPLANE OVER TO RWY 17R WHEN THE TOWER CTLR NOTIFIED US THAT WE WERE LINED UP WITH THE WRONG RWY. THE TOWER CTLR THEN CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 17L. AFTER CLRING THE RWY I ASKED THE CTLR IF WE NEEDED TO CONTACT HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT WHEN HE STATED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY. AS PIC I SHOULD HAVE MONITORED THE FO'S COURSE POSITION RELATIVE TO OUR FMS; ILS CDI; AND MOVING MAP TO ENSURE THAT THE ACFT WAS LINED UP WITH THE CORRECT RWY. ADDITIONALLY; AS PIC I SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED SUCH A SHORT APCH IN THE FIRST PLACE AS WE HARDLY HAD ENOUGH TIME TO LOAD THE APCH IN THE FMS AND DID NOT HAVE TIME TO BRIEF THE APCH WHICH IS OUR COMPANY PROC.SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 755803: ON APCH INTO DEN WE WERE ADVISED TO EXPECT RWY 16L FOR A VISUAL APCH. AT THE LAST MINUTE ON A HIGH DOWNWIND WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WILL NOW BE LNDG ON RWY 17R; WHICH WAS A CLOSER RWY AND WOULD NOT GIVE US MUCH TIME TO SET UP OUR NAVAIDS. BUT WE SAID THAT WOULD BE OK. AT THIS POINT WE WERE ONLY A FEW MILES FROM THE RWY. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A HDG OF 260 DEGS AND TOLD TO DSND FROM 11000 FT MSL TO 7000 FT MSL (1800 FT AGL). WE THEN BEGAN TO RUSH OUR DSCNT AS IT APPEARED THAT THE RWY WAS VERY CLOSE. OUR NEXT ASSIGNED HDG WAS 230 DEGS AND CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. OUR ALIGNMENT WAS GOOD FOR RWY 17L AND IN THINKING THAT IT WAS RWY 17L WE CONTINUED THE VISUAL APCH. AT APPROX 3 NM OUT I REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE WRONG RWY AND BEGAN A SIDESTEP TO THE CORRECT RWY. ATC THEN ADVISED ME THAT IT WAS OK IF WE WANTED TO LAND ON RWY 17L AND CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 17L. UPON LNDG ATC ADVISED US THAT NO ACTION WAS NECESSARY ON THEIR PART OR OURS. I THINK MULTIPLE THINGS WENT WRONG ON THIS APCH. FIRST OF ALL WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE VISUAL TO A RWY THAT WAS CLOSE WHEN WE WERE HIGH AND HAD LITTLE TIME TO SET UP FOR THE APCH. WE SHOULD HAVE ALSO NOT JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RWY OUR VECTOR SET US UP FOR WAS THE CORRECT RWY. WE COULD HAVE USED OUR INSTRUMENTS TO TELL US THAT WE HAD THE WRONG RWY. BUT WE WERE SO CAUGHT UP IN THE FACT THAT WE WERE HIGH THAT WE WERE LOOKING OUTSIDE TO CORRECT OUR PATH. ATC COULD HAVE ALSO GIVEN US A BETTER VECTOR AND NOT INSIDE THE OUTER MARKER AT SUCH A HIGH ALTITUDE.

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.