Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During descent to CLE; we pulled the latest ATIS which indicated ILS 6R in use and 6L/24R closed as was indicated on the notams. We set up for an approach to ILS 6R. When we checked in with approach control with [current ATIS] information; they indicated [a new ATIS] was [now] current and gave us a descent and heading to intercept the localizer. We turned to the heading; extended off SERLE and began the descent. We intercepted the localizer and tracked it in and then we were given the clearance 'over DUPAY; cleared the ILS RWY 6L.' At that time we read back cleared the ILS RWY 6R? and checked our approach plate for RWY 6R. The controller then said; 'cleared RWY 6L'; we scrambled but were able to re configure the approach for 6L and fly a stable approach to land. After visual with the runway; we asked approach if we were cleared to land and he said 'contact tower on frequency 124.5;' and indicated he had already given us that. The expected runway on the ATIS of 6R and then the change to 6L on the ATIS as well as being unclear as to what localizer to intercept caused us to be rushed and created a potential problem. If the NOTAMS indicate a runway is closed; the ATIS indicates a Runway is closed and then a new ATIS comes out after we checked in with [the current ATIS we had obtained]; the controller should clarify that 6L is now open. Also; the 'Intercept the localizer' clearance should always include the runway.


Second narrative: Controller responded 'cleared ILS Runway 6L'. Between approximately 18-15 miles out we inserted the 6L approach into the FMC and transitioned over; while still above all minimum fix altitudes. Configured aircraft and flew a stable approach to 6L. Visual with the runway; we asked approach if we were cleared to land; as we were now approximately 5 miles out. We were instructed to contact tower on frequency 124.5 as if he had already given us the handoff. Contacted Cleveland tower approximately 1-2 miles out and were cleared to land.  Based on the current ATIS and notams we planned for runway 6R ILS. Well into our descent and approach; ATIS changed to included 6L as another landing runway. This along with last minute unclear instructions to intercept a localizer caused us to rush; obtain clarification and make subsequent FMC runway changes during a high workload period. There comes a point during the approach phase where it's no longer feasible to obtain ATIS updates; as doing so becomes a distraction. It is incumbent upon ATC to verbally update crews on any last minute changes; especially when operating in IMC conditions. Localizer intercept instructions were also not clearly stated. I believe ATC expected us to intercept the 6L localizer and we; based on the information we had anticipated flying the 6R ILS is what caused the confusion.


Synopsis: An A319 flight crew was expecting the ILS to Runway 6R at CLE due to the ATIS information and a NOTAM closing Runway 6L. Upon check in with Approach they are advised that a new ATIS is current and to intercept the localizer. The next clearance is for the ILS 6L which the crew is not ready for but manages to set up and execute.