SJU VECTORS A320 FLC TOWARDS RWY 10 FINAL APCH COURSE; BUT THE FLC ARE EXPECTING RWY 8. CONFUSION RESOLVED ON SECOND APCH. PIC CALLED ATC.

Narrative

LEG SIT-SJU. INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH; NO APCH INFO GIVEN. ATIS INFO STATED SIMULTANEOUS APCHS TO RWYS AT SJU. ACFT SET-UP AND CREW BRIEF COMPLETED FOR RWY 8 ILS ARR. ATC APCH FREQ EXTREMELY BUSY. ATC APCH COMS MUFFLED; ENGLISH DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. ACFT WAS VECTORED TO BASE LEG TO INTERCEPT LOC. NO WAY OR APCH INFO GIVEN WHEN CLRNC TO INTERCEPT LOC WAS GIVEN. ENTIRE APCH WAS BEING FLOWN BY FO UTILIZING AUTOPLT. ON INTERCEPT HDG ON R BASE AT 1900 FT MSL; CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT. WE REPLIED NO. CTLR THEN ISSUED VECTOR WHICH RESULTED IN ACFT BEING VECTORED AWAY FROM THE LOC TO RWY 8. CTLR THEN TOLD US THE ARPT WAS AT 3 O'CLOCK POS. COINCIDENTALLY; THERE WAS ANOTHER ARPT AT 3 O'CLOCK POS THAT HAS SIMILAR RWY LAYOUT (FERNANDO LUIS RIBAS DOMINICCI). CAPT SUGGESTED TO COPLT THAT THIS WAS SAN JUAN ARPT; BUT WAS NOT SURE. FO LOOKED AT ARPT; DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT; AND STARTED TO DSND. (EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST CLUE I HAD WAS THAT I THOUGHT WE HAD PASSED ABEAM THE ARPT (SJU) ON DOWNWIND 5-8 MINS EARLIER; SECOND CLUE WAS THE PICTURE ON THE NAV DISPLAY SHOWED THE ARPT 10 NM FURTHER TO THE E; AND THE BIGGER CLUE OF ALL -- THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY TRANSPORT AIRLINE ACFT ON THE GND AT THIS ARPT -- POINT NOT MENTIONED. CAPT TOLD FO THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN TO SJU FOR 20 YRS. FO HAD BEEN INTO ROOSEVELT ROADS NAS NUMEROUS TIMES; BUT NEVER INTO SJU. AT THE SAME TIME; CTLR THEN ISSUED VECTORS TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE BACK TO A XWIND; THEN DOWNWIND FOR WHAT WE EXPECTED AND WAS NEVER TOLD; TO AN ILS RWY 8; AS PREVIOUSLY BRIEFED AND EXPECTED BY THE FLC. ACFT WAS AGAIN BEING FLOWN BY USE OF THE AUTOPLT AND FO (WHO NOW WAS DETERMINED TO LET THE AUTOMATION WORK TO FLY THE ILS TO RWY 8 TO SHORT FINAL). AGAIN; WHILE ON VECTOR TO THE RWY 8 LOC (WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE BEING VECTORED TO) ATC AGAIN VECTORED US OFF TO A DIFFERENT HDG; REPEATING THE PREVIOUSLY ABOVE DISCUSSED VECTORS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH THIS SEQUENCE WAS THAT I WAS VERY ATTENTIVE; IN THE FACT THAT THE OTHER ARPT WAS NOT SJU AND I HAD NO INTENTION OF LNDG OR DOING A VISUAL APCH TO THAT ARPT. CAPT INSISTED TO ATC THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE ARPT AND REQUESTED A VECTOR TO THE ARPT. ATC THEN CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 8 AFTER WE TOLD THEM WE HAD THE ARPT; THEN TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR. WE CONTACTED TWR AND STARTED MANEUVERING FOR AN EXTENDED 5 MI FINAL TO RWY 8. APPROX 2 MINS LATER; TWR ASKED US IF WE WERE FLYING THE 'LAGOON VISUAL TO RWY 8.' WE SAID NO; THAT WE WERE IN FACT CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 8. THEY SAID 'FLY THE LAGOON VISUAL;' SO WE SURMISED (BECAUSE NEITHER OF US HAD TIME TO LOOK AT IT) THAT THEY WANTED US TO THE E OF THE LAGOON. THAT'S WHAT WE DID; AND THEN MANEUVERED FOR A L BASE TO RWY 8 AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER BLOCK-IN; THE CAPT CONTACTED ATC. BOTTOM LINE: ATC ASSUMED THAT WE WERE GOING TO INTERCEPT LOC RWY 10 (NOT RWY 8) AND THAT IS WHY WE WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO INTERCEPT LOC RWY 08. ATC REVIEWED TAPES AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY NEVER ADVISED US OF THE APCH TO BE FLOWN.