|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : new|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||general aviation : instructional|
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear|
|Flight Phase||landing other|
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : local|
|Qualification||controller : non radar|
|Function||flight crew : single pilot|
instruction : instructor
|Qualification||pilot : cfi|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 130|
flight time total : 1600
|Anomaly||incursion : runway|
non adherence : far
non adherence : clearance
|Independent Detector||other controllera|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
|Consequence||faa : reviewed incident with flight crew|
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Pilot Deviation|
Runway 18L/36R was closed for men and equipment installing reils. The small aircraft was cleared to land runway 18R, hold short of runway 9. I later observed the aircraft abeam the numbers of runway 18L still heading wbound, for what I assumed was runway 18R. The next time I saw the small aircraft. He was touching down midfield of runway 18L. The equipment was clear of the runway and the men were working along the edge. The pilot informed to call the tower. In talking with the pilot and listening to the tapes, it was apparent that there were several contributing factors. They include the fact that runway 18L is the shortest of our parallel runway's, therefore it is used primarily by the small, single engine aircraft and for pattern traffic. It's the one they use 95% of the time. They are conditioned to it. Also the pilot was taxied to 18R for takeoff and had the old ATIS, Q, as it was being changed at that time. Information Q was missing the NOTAM of 18L/36R being closed. The pilot did not question why he was being taxied to the unfamiliar runway. When I cleared him for takeoff at XA03, new ATIS which had the NOTAM, had been current for some time. When he called back up inbound only 15 mins had elapsed so I did not question him to verify. Unknown to me at the time I had told him to enter a left base for runway 18L. At that time I was also sequencing several aircraft for runway 9. Left alone these aircraft from different directions would have all ended up on 2 mi final at the same time. After clearing the small aircraft to land 18R and observed him past the final for 18L I turned my attention back to assuring sep on runway 9. The pilot admitted overshooting 18L and neither the ground controller nor myself observed him turning back to 18L (only about 750' separate the 2). After the incident the pilot and at manager sat down and reviewed the tape. His errors and our were pointed out to him. All personnel involved reviewed the tape and were counseled, the situation was handled in house. Suggestions: 1) since that runway will be closed off an on for the next 60 days, maybe vinyl yellow 'X's' be used to mark the runway during closures. 2) to have someone monitor the ATIS every time you take the position to ensure that all information contained is correct. 3) for myself to ask for assistance with scanning when asking a pilot to do something he is not accustomed to. Also, when other fpl's are available, appoint someone other than local control as controller in charge. We just have too much traffic to do both jobs effectively.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: LANDED ON CLOSED RWY.
Narrative: RWY 18L/36R WAS CLOSED FOR MEN AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLING REILS. THE SMA WAS CLRED TO LAND RWY 18R, HOLD SHORT OF RWY 9. I LATER OBSERVED THE ACFT ABEAM THE NUMBERS OF RWY 18L STILL HDG WBOUND, FOR WHAT I ASSUMED WAS RWY 18R. THE NEXT TIME I SAW THE SMA. HE WAS TOUCHING DOWN MIDFIELD OF RWY 18L. THE EQUIP WAS CLR OF THE RWY AND THE MEN WERE WORKING ALONG THE EDGE. THE PLT INFORMED TO CALL THE TWR. IN TALKING WITH THE PLT AND LISTENING TO THE TAPES, IT WAS APPARENT THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. THEY INCLUDE THE FACT THAT RWY 18L IS THE SHORTEST OF OUR PARALLEL RWY'S, THEREFORE IT IS USED PRIMARILY BY THE SMALL, SINGLE ENG ACFT AND FOR PATTERN TFC. IT'S THE ONE THEY USE 95% OF THE TIME. THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO IT. ALSO THE PLT WAS TAXIED TO 18R FOR TKOF AND HAD THE OLD ATIS, Q, AS IT WAS BEING CHANGED AT THAT TIME. INFO Q WAS MISSING THE NOTAM OF 18L/36R BEING CLOSED. THE PLT DID NOT QUESTION WHY HE WAS BEING TAXIED TO THE UNFAMILIAR RWY. WHEN I CLRED HIM FOR TKOF AT XA03, NEW ATIS WHICH HAD THE NOTAM, HAD BEEN CURRENT FOR SOME TIME. WHEN HE CALLED BACK UP INBND ONLY 15 MINS HAD ELAPSED SO I DID NOT QUESTION HIM TO VERIFY. UNKNOWN TO ME AT THE TIME I HAD TOLD HIM TO ENTER A LEFT BASE FOR RWY 18L. AT THAT TIME I WAS ALSO SEQUENCING SEVERAL ACFT FOR RWY 9. LEFT ALONE THESE ACFT FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS WOULD HAVE ALL ENDED UP ON 2 MI FINAL AT THE SAME TIME. AFTER CLRING THE SMA TO LAND 18R AND OBSERVED HIM PAST THE FINAL FOR 18L I TURNED MY ATTN BACK TO ASSURING SEP ON RWY 9. THE PLT ADMITTED OVERSHOOTING 18L AND NEITHER THE GND CTLR NOR MYSELF OBSERVED HIM TURNING BACK TO 18L (ONLY ABOUT 750' SEPARATE THE 2). AFTER THE INCIDENT THE PLT AND AT MGR SAT DOWN AND REVIEWED THE TAPE. HIS ERRORS AND OUR WERE POINTED OUT TO HIM. ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED REVIEWED THE TAPE AND WERE COUNSELED, THE SITUATION WAS HANDLED IN HOUSE. SUGGESTIONS: 1) SINCE THAT RWY WILL BE CLOSED OFF AN ON FOR THE NEXT 60 DAYS, MAYBE VINYL YELLOW 'X'S' BE USED TO MARK THE RWY DURING CLOSURES. 2) TO HAVE SOMEONE MONITOR THE ATIS EVERY TIME YOU TAKE THE POS TO ENSURE THAT ALL INFO CONTAINED IS CORRECT. 3) FOR MYSELF TO ASK FOR ASSISTANCE WITH SCANNING WHEN ASKING A PLT TO DO SOMETHING HE IS NOT ACCUSTOMED TO. ALSO, WHEN OTHER FPL'S ARE AVAILABLE, APPOINT SOMEONE OTHER THAN LC AS CIC. WE JUST HAVE TOO MUCH TFC TO DO BOTH JOBS EFFECTIVELY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.