Narrative:

While en route to oneill, northeast, I tuned in the AWOS on the field. Receiving a report of 500 ft overcast and 7 mi visibility with a north wind at 10 KTS. The runway orientation is 13/31 and the approach minimums to runway 13 are 389 ft AGL while runway 31 is 530 ft AGL. It was apparent that I would need the downwind approach to land due to minimums. When center called and asked what approach I would like to plan, I immediately said VOR to runway 31. My mind was thinking of the direction of landing appropriate to the wind, but I was briefing myself for the approach needed for the lower minimums. This aircraft did not have a chart clip, so once I had briefed the approach I had stowed it on my clipboard on the floor. When center asked the approach question, my mind immediately thought of the appropriate runway for the wind, and since I was not physically looking at the approach plate showing runway 13, I blurted out the wrong runway number. Consequently, I proceeded to fly the VOR 13 approach with no incidents and landed runway 13 in oneill. It was not until I was ready to depart and was again considering appropriate wind/runway pairing that I realized that I had flown exactly the approach I had in mind but had requested a different approach from the center controller. I feel there were 2 major contributing factors: 1) landing downwind is not a normal operation for me and therefore, I am used to landing and thinking of headwind oriented runway. 2) since I had stowed the approach plate already, I did not have the opportunity to be visually reminded of the approach as I would have been if the plate was on the yoke in front of me as it usually is. In this instance, a slip of the tongue could have been corrected had I displayed more vigilance in the cockpit and constantly reconfirmed the information I was using.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX PLT MAKES APCH TO NON TWR ARPT USING APCH PROC OTHER THAN COORDINATED WITH ARTCC RADAR CTLR IN CTR. ERROR ADMITTED.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE TO ONEILL, NE, I TUNED IN THE AWOS ON THE FIELD. RECEIVING A RPT OF 500 FT OVCST AND 7 MI VISIBILITY WITH A N WIND AT 10 KTS. THE RWY ORIENTATION IS 13/31 AND THE APCH MINIMUMS TO RWY 13 ARE 389 FT AGL WHILE RWY 31 IS 530 FT AGL. IT WAS APPARENT THAT I WOULD NEED THE DOWNWIND APCH TO LAND DUE TO MINIMUMS. WHEN CTR CALLED AND ASKED WHAT APCH I WOULD LIKE TO PLAN, I IMMEDIATELY SAID VOR TO RWY 31. MY MIND WAS THINKING OF THE DIRECTION OF LNDG APPROPRIATE TO THE WIND, BUT I WAS BRIEFING MYSELF FOR THE APCH NEEDED FOR THE LOWER MINIMUMS. THIS ACFT DID NOT HAVE A CHART CLIP, SO ONCE I HAD BRIEFED THE APCH I HAD STOWED IT ON MY CLIPBOARD ON THE FLOOR. WHEN CTR ASKED THE APCH QUESTION, MY MIND IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT OF THE APPROPRIATE RWY FOR THE WIND, AND SINCE I WAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOOKING AT THE APCH PLATE SHOWING RWY 13, I BLURTED OUT THE WRONG RWY NUMBER. CONSEQUENTLY, I PROCEEDED TO FLY THE VOR 13 APCH WITH NO INCIDENTS AND LANDED RWY 13 IN ONEILL. IT WAS NOT UNTIL I WAS READY TO DEPART AND WAS AGAIN CONSIDERING APPROPRIATE WIND/RWY PAIRING THAT I REALIZED THAT I HAD FLOWN EXACTLY THE APCH I HAD IN MIND BUT HAD REQUESTED A DIFFERENT APCH FROM THE CTR CTLR. I FEEL THERE WERE 2 MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) LNDG DOWNWIND IS NOT A NORMAL OP FOR ME AND THEREFORE, I AM USED TO LNDG AND THINKING OF HEADWIND ORIENTED RWY. 2) SINCE I HAD STOWED THE APCH PLATE ALREADY, I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE VISUALLY REMINDED OF THE APCH AS I WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE PLATE WAS ON THE YOKE IN FRONT OF ME AS IT USUALLY IS. IN THIS INSTANCE, A SLIP OF THE TONGUE COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED HAD I DISPLAYED MORE VIGILANCE IN THE COCKPIT AND CONSTANTLY RECONFIRMED THE INFO I WAS USING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.