Narrative:

Descending for approach to alw, approach control advised GS for runway 20 OTS. Approach control assigned VOR 16 via radar vectors. Captain briefed circle to land minutes for runway 20. Inside FAF, tower reported other aircraft saw runway 16 at minimums and 1 DME, and landed runway 16. First officer made standard callouts based on st. In 16 rather than circle to land 20. At st. In minima for 16 and at 1 DME first officer saw runway 16. First officer queried tower for landing clearance and tower cleared us to land runway 16. Not until we talked to ground control about why we didn't get localizer only approach runway 20 did they mention 'runway 16 not authorized for your size aircraft.' ground then advised it was a technicality not to be able to sue runway 16 due to lack of runway lights. Then he said, 'oh, well it was operationally necessary for you to use it (runway 16).' I (first officer) believe ATC led me down the primrose path by even mentioning runway 16. Had they not mentioned it, we would have done what we briefed (circle 20), remained iml (circle to land minima was 140 ft higher), gone missed approach and diverted. Towers comments about runway 16 and st in minimums caused me to blank out on the use of the circling MDA. However, from now on I will always read every note and black balled item in the note section on the airport diagram before every landing...even if I've been there hundreds of times before. Also, if ATC knew we weren't authorized on runway 16, why did they clear us to land on it? I know it's my unintentional fault for using the wrong MDA, the only corrective action I can think of is to maintain higher vigilance. Other contributing factors: I atogs (takeoff and landing data) showed us able to use runway 16. Instructor approach plate had no note on it: trip was the 2ND reduced rest trip that week (8 plus 05 on ground): tower knew we were not authorized, but didn't say anything prior to landing. Supplemental information from acn 271840: they then told us that runway 16 is not available for our airline and aircraft type due to runway lights. We then looked at the airport diagram on a different approach plate. Ground control was right. There was a note saying runway 16/34 na for our type aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTH RWY USE OP. LNDG ON RWY NOT AUTHORIZED BY OP SPECS.

Narrative: DSNDING FOR APCH TO ALW, APCH CTL ADVISED GS FOR RWY 20 OTS. APCH CTL ASSIGNED VOR 16 VIA RADAR VECTORS. CAPT BRIEFED CIRCLE TO LAND MINUTES FOR RWY 20. INSIDE FAF, TWR RPTED OTHER ACFT SAW RWY 16 AT MINIMUMS AND 1 DME, AND LANDED RWY 16. FO MADE STANDARD CALLOUTS BASED ON ST. IN 16 RATHER THAN CIRCLE TO LAND 20. AT ST. IN MINIMA FOR 16 AND AT 1 DME FO SAW RWY 16. FO QUERIED TWR FOR LNDG CLRNC AND TWR CLRED US TO LAND RWY 16. NOT UNTIL WE TALKED TO GND CTL ABOUT WHY WE DIDN'T GET LOC ONLY APCH RWY 20 DID THEY MENTION 'RWY 16 NOT AUTHORIZED FOR YOUR SIZE ACFT.' GND THEN ADVISED IT WAS A TECHNICALITY NOT TO BE ABLE TO SUE RWY 16 DUE TO LACK OF RWY LIGHTS. THEN HE SAID, 'OH, WELL IT WAS OPERATIONALLY NECESSARY FOR YOU TO USE IT (RWY 16).' I (FO) BELIEVE ATC LED ME DOWN THE PRIMROSE PATH BY EVEN MENTIONING RWY 16. HAD THEY NOT MENTIONED IT, WE WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT WE BRIEFED (CIRCLE 20), REMAINED IML (CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMA WAS 140 FT HIGHER), GONE MISSED APCH AND DIVERTED. TWRS COMMENTS ABOUT RWY 16 AND ST IN MINIMUMS CAUSED ME TO BLANK OUT ON THE USE OF THE CIRCLING MDA. HOWEVER, FROM NOW ON I WILL ALWAYS READ EVERY NOTE AND BLACK BALLED ITEM IN THE NOTE SECTION ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM BEFORE EVERY LNDG...EVEN IF I'VE BEEN THERE HUNDREDS OF TIMES BEFORE. ALSO, IF ATC KNEW WE WEREN'T AUTHORIZED ON RWY 16, WHY DID THEY CLR US TO LAND ON IT? I KNOW IT'S MY UNINTENTIONAL FAULT FOR USING THE WRONG MDA, THE ONLY CORRECTIVE ACTION I CAN THINK OF IS TO MAINTAIN HIGHER VIGILANCE. OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: I ATOGS (TKOF AND LNDG DATA) SHOWED US ABLE TO USE RWY 16. INSTRUCTOR APCH PLATE HAD NO NOTE ON IT: TRIP WAS THE 2ND REDUCED REST TRIP THAT WK (8 PLUS 05 ON GND): TWR KNEW WE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED, BUT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING PRIOR TO LNDG. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 271840: THEY THEN TOLD US THAT RWY 16 IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR OUR AIRLINE AND ACFT TYPE DUE TO RWY LIGHTS. WE THEN LOOKED AT THE ARPT DIAGRAM ON A DIFFERENT APCH PLATE. GND CTL WAS RIGHT. THERE WAS A NOTE SAYING RWY 16/34 NA FOR OUR TYPE ACFT.

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.