Non-flying captain fails to note change in landing runway assignment.

Attributes
ACN	767269
Time
Date	200712
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dtw.airport
State Reference	MI
Altitude	msl single value : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : d21.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 22l
Flight Phase	descent : approach ground : parked
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 30000 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	767269
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued advisory flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course flight crew : overcame equipment problem
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Checked in with approach and were told to expect ILS runway 22R. Set up runway 22R in the FMC. We were later changed to runway 21L. I heard the clearance and acknowledged but somehow had a mind block of runway 22L. I think this is because runway 21L had been closed for resurfacing for several months and had just recently re-opened. During the construction phase; runway 22L was often used. This was the usual image I had in my head. I set up runway 22L in the FMC as the PNF and even identified the ILS frequency. We did another approach check since our runway was changed. The first officer didn't catch my error. We were given a final vector to intercept and cleared from 4000 ft to 3000 ft with a speed reduction to 180 KTS. We configured and slowed then started down to 3000 ft. All was well until the controller asked to verify runway 21L. I realized my error and had the first officer make a large heading change to get back over to the runway 21L localizer. Runway was in sight and we visually landed runway 21L. I telephoned the controller to apologize and was informed that fortunately there was no traffic conflict. Next time I will be much more aware of what I hear and what I think was said.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NON-FLYING CAPTAIN FAILS TO NOTE CHANGE IN LANDING RWY ASSIGNMENT.

Narrative: CHKED IN WITH APCH AND WERE TOLD TO EXPECT ILS RWY 22R. SET UP RWY 22R IN THE FMC. WE WERE LATER CHANGED TO RWY 21L. I HEARD THE CLRNC AND ACKNOWLEDGED BUT SOMEHOW HAD A MIND BLOCK OF RWY 22L. I THINK THIS IS BECAUSE RWY 21L HAD BEEN CLOSED FOR RESURFACING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND HAD JUST RECENTLY RE-OPENED. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE; RWY 22L WAS OFTEN USED. THIS WAS THE USUAL IMAGE I HAD IN MY HEAD. I SET UP RWY 22L IN THE FMC AS THE PNF AND EVEN IDENTIFIED THE ILS FREQ. WE DID ANOTHER APCH CHK SINCE OUR RWY WAS CHANGED. THE FO DIDN'T CATCH MY ERROR. WE WERE GIVEN A FINAL VECTOR TO INTERCEPT AND CLRED FROM 4000 FT TO 3000 FT WITH A SPD REDUCTION TO 180 KTS. WE CONFIGURED AND SLOWED THEN STARTED DOWN TO 3000 FT. ALL WAS WELL UNTIL THE CTLR ASKED TO VERIFY RWY 21L. I REALIZED MY ERROR AND HAD THE FO MAKE A LARGE HDG CHANGE TO GET BACK OVER TO THE RWY 21L LOCALIZER. RWY WAS IN SIGHT AND WE VISUALLY LANDED RWY 21L. I TELEPHONED THE CTLR TO APOLOGIZE AND WAS INFORMED THAT FORTUNATELY THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT. NEXT TIME I WILL BE MUCH MORE AWARE OF WHAT I HEAR AND WHAT I THINK WAS SAID.

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.