Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, Us
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Pilot Monitoring on the flight. While stopped and holding short of the departure runway I requested the ATIS for ZZZ. During this process I missed that I requested the departure ATIS for ZZZ it was ROMEO. Once in route the Pilot Flying asked if I have ever been to ZZZ with our company and I stated no. He told me from his past experience we do the ILS Z XXR approach. The Pilot Flying set up and we briefed the ILS Z XXR approach. As we got closer; I requested an updated ATIS in which I showed to the Pilot flying on the CDU. The new ATIS was Foxtrot; which seemed strange to me they went from R to F. I updated the winds and altimeter on the Performance software. We both missed on the ATIS they were calling for the approach ILS Y XXR. I read what I wanted to see and missed the 'Y' portion of the text.  On checking in with approach they stated expect ILS XXR. As we were descending through 10;000 feet; I asked the Pilot Flying if he was ready for approach check. He said yes; but did not have an ID yet for the ILS. He then asked me to try to ID it from listening to it. Both Pilots heard beeps but they were broken up and hard to hear. We were getting vectored for the approach and ATC told us to intercept the localizer. I told the Pilot Flying he needed to arm the localizer. He stated he did not have one shown. About that time; ATC gave us another heading to rejoin the localizer. I stated to ATC that we did not have the localizer for the ILS Z XXR. ATC then said they were doing the ILS Y XXR. As the Pilot Monitoring; I looked up the correct frequency for that localizer tuned it in and we were able to join the approach and without further incident.  Once on the ground we briefed the errors; we made as a crew. For further discussion; it would be nice if the Approach Controller could state the exact approach in use instead of just ILS XXR. It would be beneficial for ILS YANKEE XXR. This was definitely pilot error on our part and very thankful there was no loss of separation by us with ATC. I will definitely be more diligent when requesting and updating the ATIS. I should have more diligence requesting and reading the ATIS. Do not 'poison the well' with type of approach expected from past experience. ATC could advise type of approach in use weather it is ILS ZULU/YANKEE XXR/L.


Second narrative: During approach preparations we prepared for an ILS XXR. This was based on the latest ATIS we had. As PM (Pilot Flying); I perused the ATIS and saw 'Approaches and Departures in progress XY L; XXR; XXL. in the back of my mind and based on the ONE other time I operated into ZZZ...no mention of ILS Y XXR meant they were using the ILS Z XXR. That's what we setup for...ILS Z.On downwind; we were having trouble identifying the LOC frequency as we were being vectored quickly to final the controller cleared us for the ILS XXR...saying we were xx miles from [FIX](best recollection) cleared for the ILS XXR. At this point I realized that point was not on the ILS XXR we had briefed/built and asked the PM to confirm we were going to XXR. The controller confirmed XXR but this time said ILS XXR 'YANKEE'. I had LNAVed onto the ILS path we had programmed to join up on the LOC when the controller asked us to fly heading 245 to rejoin the LOC. The PM (Pilot Monitoring) dialed in the correct frequency and we joined the 'Yankee' approach path; which is offset 3 degrees from the ZULU ILS.When we checked in with both approach controllers they confirmed 'Runway XXR' No mention of ILS Z or Y. After we landed and on taxi in; the PM discovered that; the new ATIS stated ILS Y XXR. When we blocked in; he informed me of this information. This was different language from what was printed out and what I read when we pulled the ATIS in cruise after leaving ZZZ1. I asked the PM to print out this new ATIS. At this point; I was more than a little annoyed at ATC thinking how lazy it is to not say YANKEE when telling a flight what to expect when they say ILS XXR or XXR...simple just to say YANKEE or ZULU along with that I thought.As I looked at the NEW ATIS we just printed out...I noticed that it looked different...the new one was the actual ARRIVAL ATIS F. The one that was pulled and printed was the DEPARTURE ATIS K or something. The PM briefed from this and I looked it over mostly concerned with wind and weather and landing runway. Although it nagged me at the time that it did not specifically say 'ILS XXR'; I did not give it much thought and I did not catch that the wrong ATIS had been printed.We debriefed the event and discussed the failures that came together for this and how to avoid issues in the future.Factors: it was curious that inflight the ATIS did not default to the ARRIVAL ATIS when using ACARS. Failure to detect that fact by either the PF or PM. ATC: We take on the responsibilities to manage complicated descend via arrivals with altitude and speed management now that used to be the domain of the controller...that's helpful honestly but this event highlights some issues with ATC. ATC is no longer required to verify or correct erroneous read backs of a clearance and now we see that are not of much assistance now in this matter...seriously; how hard is it to say XXR Yankee or Zulu in an effort to close the comm loop when you have Y and Z ILS approaches to the same runway.Was this ATCs fault...No; it was our inattention to the ACARS ATIS header that put us in an awkward position...could they have been more assistive when checking on?...I think there is room to improve some of these aspects. Closer attention by the PM and PF to verify the correct ATIS is pulled.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported misreading the ATIS and selected the incorrect approach.