•  ...Our ATC clearance was to descend via the CIVET arrival. ATC had not yet assigned a runway, and to load this procedure into the FMS a runway selection is required. We loaded the arrival and Runway 25R since this was the preferred runway and I had been to LAX several days earlier and this was the runway we used then. Nearing CIVET intersection, ATC informed us we would be landing Runway 24R. I instructed the First Officer to change the runway selection in the FMS to Runway 24R. He made the change and advised me so. Within about one minute, I began to verify the altitude restrictions on the arrival chart and check them in the FMS. I immediately noticed that while the runway and approach had been changed, the arrival transition between CIVET and the Runway 24R were not correct in the FMS. The transition to the Runway 25R approach was still loaded even though the Runway 24R approach was now part of the active flight plan. At about the same time, ATC stated that it looked like we were heading for Runway 25R and questioned us...While we were correcting the issue in the FMS, ATC assigned a vector to intercept the Runway 24R localizer....

  While we as a crew made several mistakes during this event, there are...other areas that led to this occurrence: ATC seems to assign a runway change at a late stage on this arrival...The FMS will not allow you to load this arrival from the database unless you select a runway first (ZLA [Los Angeles Center] will not assign a runway, but will clear you to descend via the arrival, so you have to select a runway). This can lead to a situation like the above if you guess wrong. The runway assignments are handled by SOCAL [Southern California TRACON]). Reasonable advance notice will greatly reduce the possibility of something like this happening....

A late runway change at Orlando International airport (MCO) resulted in a flight crew’s failure to meet a crossing restriction.

• MCO Approach issued ‘cleared for the Visual Approach Runway 17L cross FONIK at or above 3,000 feet.’ Our position to my knowledge was south of FONIK and just north of SEEDO intersections. As the PNF [Pilot not Flying] I set 2,500 feet in the altitude window (as per the ILS crossing altitude at SEEDO). Approach Control reminded us to cross north of FONIK above 3,000 feet. I told the First Officer to give it to him (i.e., climb back to 3,000 feet). Upon reaching 3,000 feet and descending on the glideslope south of FONIK, we commenced descent from 3,000 feet. We were switched to MCO Tower and were given landing clearance and were told to call Approach Control via phone upon block in....Upon block in, I returned the call to MCO Approach and was told the tapes were unintelligible and not to worry about it. Conclusion: it was a last-minute runway switch from the West complex to the East complex with very congested radio traffic. I assumed we were in compliance with the ATC constraint and realized it was not so. Combined with the above facts, it was a task saturated environment. Maintaining situational awareness while accomplishing difficult ATC instructions will require more vigilance.

A B737-300 First Officer describes a late runway change at Las Vegas (LAS) and difficulty reprogramming the FMC.

• Course deviation. I was flying to LAS. The ATIS as copied by the Captain listed Runway 19 as the landing runway. I set up the FMS for the SKEBR arrival Runway 19. We were then cleared to descend to CLARR at 13,000 feet on the SKEBR arrival for Runway 25. When I reset the FMC for Runway 25, I ended up with overlapping information on the flight route. By the time I got it sorted out, I was past SKEBR and missed the turn to KEPEC.