Flight crew briefed approachs for both runways and put them in the FMS. ATC assigned runway 26L but ...

Attributes
ACN	765437
Time
Date	200712
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : iah.airport
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl single value : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : i90.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	765437
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
ASRS Report	765438
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Ambiguous

Narrative:

After checking with approach and advising them we had the ATIS we believe we were told to expect runway 26L; however we knew that they were landing runway 26L and right since we had heard them clear a preceding aircraft to expect runway 26R; and it was on the ATIS. We briefed both apches and had runway 26L in the main and runway 26R in the standby navigation radios. After given our initial heading to intercept runway 26L we were then cleared for the ILS runway 26R. We queried the controller when he gave us 190 KTS to chubs which was on the runway 26R approach. He told us we should have been told runway 26R and vectored us for that approach. We switched the frequencies; changed the FMS; and briefed the changes. After the initial vector and changes we found ourselves momentarily through the localizer course for runway 26R; but it did not cause any conflicts. We flew the runway 26R approach without any further confusion. The reason I am filling out the report is to make people aware; if there is ever a doubt in your mind as to the approach you are assigned; you should always query ATC.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW BRIEFED APCHS FOR BOTH RWYS AND PUT THEM IN THE FMS. ATC ASSIGNED RWY 26L BUT CHANGED BY GIVING THE FAF BUT NOT THE RWY NUMBER.

Narrative: AFTER CHKING WITH APCH AND ADVISING THEM WE HAD THE ATIS WE BELIEVE WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 26L; HOWEVER WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE LNDG RWY 26L AND R SINCE WE HAD HEARD THEM CLR A PRECEDING ACFT TO EXPECT RWY 26R; AND IT WAS ON THE ATIS. WE BRIEFED BOTH APCHES AND HAD RWY 26L IN THE MAIN AND RWY 26R IN THE STANDBY NAV RADIOS. AFTER GIVEN OUR INITIAL HDG TO INTERCEPT RWY 26L WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 26R. WE QUERIED THE CTLR WHEN HE GAVE US 190 KTS TO CHUBS WHICH WAS ON THE RWY 26R APCH. HE TOLD US WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD RWY 26R AND VECTORED US FOR THAT APCH. WE SWITCHED THE FREQUENCIES; CHANGED THE FMS; AND BRIEFED THE CHANGES. AFTER THE INITIAL VECTOR AND CHANGES WE FOUND OURSELVES MOMENTARILY THROUGH THE LOC COURSE FOR RWY 26R; BUT IT DID NOT CAUSE ANY CONFLICTS. WE FLEW THE RWY 26R APCH WITHOUT ANY FURTHER CONFUSION. THE REASON I AM FILLING OUT THE RPT IS TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE; IF THERE IS EVER A DOUBT IN YOUR MIND AS TO THE APCH YOU ARE ASSIGNED; YOU SHOULD ALWAYS QUERY ATC.

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.

Flight crew briefed approachs for both runways and put them in the FMS. ATC assigned runway 26L but changed by giving the FAF but not the runway number.