Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Time Pressure
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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On our arrival into Chicago; we had briefed our arrival and approach to Chicago on the WYNDE Arrival to both 9R and 10C; both of which have us routed south of the airport. After a late hand off from Center to Approach Control; the Controller issued us expect 9L. The First Officer (pilot flying) briefed the approach; we tuned in the frequencies and he started to put in the arrival into the FMS. The caution message appeared on the FMS that started the arrival at a point already passed. We went into heading mode and I noted the that we passed TUBEZ and MONKZ was the fix we were heading to; and selected yes to confirm the restart of the procedure. Then I looked to find the point to go direct to and couldn't find it on the FMS. I looked at the arrival and realized that for [Runway] 9L the course has us going north of the airport after TUBEZ to VULCN. At this time the Controller asked if we were heading to VULCN. We explained our mistake and he gave us a heading of 270. No further action was required to correct the event.Due to the lack of time and the close proximity to TUBEZ we did not have the time to identify that the routing for [Runway] 9L was different of that for [Runway] 9R. We should have re-evaluated the arrival to identify the difference. The threats were late assignment of runway; our initial guess of runway preceding our arrival and not re-briefing the arrival after assignment of runway. I do see an inherent; continual threat with the arrivals that have different routes for different runways on the same arrival. When issued a runway; flight crews are usual well established on the arrival. I know in Canada; when you first start your descent; they issue you the runway to expect; which alleviates the last minute changes that could prevent future course deviations.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier flying the WYNDE 5 RNAV planned for ORD Runways 9R and 10C; but TRACON assigned 9L. Because of the late runway assignment and a new track south of the runways; the crew was unable to quickly located the new FMS transition. ATC's late runway assignment on an arrival with different routes for different runways is a problem for flight crews.