Narrative:

On more than 1 occasion I have flown into the slc airport and when cleared for the visual approach to runway 16 mistakened runway 17 (the parallel runway south of runway 16) as runway 16. The reason, because an additional parallel runway south of runway 17 is being constructed and is very identifiable when a pilot first sees the slc airport. When I first saw the slc airport 10-12 NM out, I saw these 2 runways, runway 17 and the runway under construction, first, and because both runways are the 2 longest runways at slc, I centered myself on the north runway thinking that it was runway 16 when, in reality it was runway 17. Meanwhile ATC was vectoring a dc-9 onto the final approach course for runway 17 at 9000 ft. As the dc-9 began to overtake me he picked up my aircraft on his TCASII 1000 ft below him. The controller then asked me to verify that I was lined up on runway 16. At that point I realized that I had mistaken the runway under construction as runway 17 and immediately sidestepped to the north runway (17). I am filing this NASA form for 2 reasons. First, I believe that there is a safety concern at the salt lake city airport and the slc ATC is not doing enough to caution pilots about the runway under construction. In my defense I would like to mention that mr X, in a position of authority/authorized with slc ATC, contacted me by phone to inform me that a pilot deviation report was filed against me but that, in his personal review of the incident, I was not at fault alone and that slc ATC was partly to blame. This observation was the result of his review of ATC xmissions and the recorded plot of the incident. In his own words, 'they did not do this guy any favors' with how they handled my approach. Had mr X been present and not out of town at the time this report would have never been filed! This leads me to the second reason why I feel it necessary to file this report. Because ATC feels that they are empowered with the ability to put a black mark on a pilot's record any time they choose whether they are partly to blame or not infuriates me to no end! If I was out of position I will be the first to admit it. But this is not the first time that pilots have found themselves out of position when transitioning from IFR to VFR especially when there is a non active runway serving the airport. Mr X said that there have been several other problems concerning this runway under construction before and after my incident. In fact, he feels that slc is partly to blame because a 'notice to airmen' report about the runway under construction was not on the arrival ATIS at slc. He stated that they used to run a NOTAM about the runway on previous ATIS reports but had frequently left it off recently. I will not take all of the blame on this, despite ATC's power of the pen. I am filing this for the safety reasons outlined above as well as to prevent enforcement action against me because of a hot headed ATC.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLTDEV.

Narrative: ON MORE THAN 1 OCCASION I HAVE FLOWN INTO THE SLC ARPT AND WHEN CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 16 MISTAKENED RWY 17 (THE PARALLEL RWY S OF RWY 16) AS RWY 16. THE REASON, BECAUSE AN ADDITIONAL PARALLEL RWY S OF RWY 17 IS BEING CONSTRUCTED AND IS VERY IDENTIFIABLE WHEN A PLT FIRST SEES THE SLC ARPT. WHEN I FIRST SAW THE SLC ARPT 10-12 NM OUT, I SAW THESE 2 RWYS, RWY 17 AND THE RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, FIRST, AND BECAUSE BOTH RWYS ARE THE 2 LONGEST RWYS AT SLC, I CTRED MYSELF ON THE N RWY THINKING THAT IT WAS RWY 16 WHEN, IN REALITY IT WAS RWY 17. MEANWHILE ATC WAS VECTORING A DC-9 ONTO THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR RWY 17 AT 9000 FT. AS THE DC-9 BEGAN TO OVERTAKE ME HE PICKED UP MY ACFT ON HIS TCASII 1000 FT BELOW HIM. THE CTLR THEN ASKED ME TO VERIFY THAT I WAS LINED UP ON RWY 16. AT THAT POINT I REALIZED THAT I HAD MISTAKEN THE RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS RWY 17 AND IMMEDIATELY SIDESTEPPED TO THE N RWY (17). I AM FILING THIS NASA FORM FOR 2 REASONS. FIRST, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SAFETY CONCERN AT THE SALT LAKE CITY ARPT AND THE SLC ATC IS NOT DOING ENOUGH TO CAUTION PLTS ABOUT THE RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IN MY DEFENSE I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT MR X, IN A POS OF AUTH WITH SLC ATC, CONTACTED ME BY PHONE TO INFORM ME THAT A PLTDEV RPT WAS FILED AGAINST ME BUT THAT, IN HIS PERSONAL REVIEW OF THE INCIDENT, I WAS NOT AT FAULT ALONE AND THAT SLC ATC WAS PARTLY TO BLAME. THIS OBSERVATION WAS THE RESULT OF HIS REVIEW OF ATC XMISSIONS AND THE RECORDED PLOT OF THE INCIDENT. IN HIS OWN WORDS, 'THEY DID NOT DO THIS GUY ANY FAVORS' WITH HOW THEY HANDLED MY APCH. HAD MR X BEEN PRESENT AND NOT OUT OF TOWN AT THE TIME THIS RPT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN FILED! THIS LEADS ME TO THE SECOND REASON WHY I FEEL IT NECESSARY TO FILE THIS RPT. BECAUSE ATC FEELS THAT THEY ARE EMPOWERED WITH THE ABILITY TO PUT A BLACK MARK ON A PLT'S RECORD ANY TIME THEY CHOOSE WHETHER THEY ARE PARTLY TO BLAME OR NOT INFURIATES ME TO NO END! IF I WAS OUT OF POS I WILL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT IT. BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT PLTS HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES OUT OF POS WHEN TRANSITIONING FROM IFR TO VFR ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A NON ACTIVE RWY SERVING THE ARPT. MR X SAID THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL OTHER PROBS CONCERNING THIS RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BEFORE AND AFTER MY INCIDENT. IN FACT, HE FEELS THAT SLC IS PARTLY TO BLAME BECAUSE A 'NOTICE TO AIRMEN' RPT ABOUT THE RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT ON THE ARR ATIS AT SLC. HE STATED THAT THEY USED TO RUN A NOTAM ABOUT THE RWY ON PREVIOUS ATIS RPTS BUT HAD FREQUENTLY LEFT IT OFF RECENTLY. I WILL NOT TAKE ALL OF THE BLAME ON THIS, DESPITE ATC'S PWR OF THE PEN. I AM FILING THIS FOR THE SAFETY REASONS OUTLINED ABOVE AS WELL AS TO PREVENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST ME BECAUSE OF A HOT HEADED ATC.

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.