Narrative:

Selected runway 33L for landing and landed without incident. Became aware the next day that runway 33L/15R was listed in NOTAMS as OTS, along with its parallel taxiway 'D.' upon further review, it was apparent I overlooked the NOTAM that was included with dispatch paperwork. At time of approach and landing sps tower was closed. Decision to utilize runway 33L was based on the following: wind reported in the hourly sequence about 40 mins prior was light (6) from the southeast, essentially not eliminating any runway from consideration. Not wanting to utilize runway 17/35 due to a special traffic pattern procedure that prevents ramp area overflt and conflicts with military training aircraft. While probably not an issue at night with tower closed, I prefer not to execute the procedure for passenger comfort reasons. Runway 33L is extremely wide and long, a minimal tailwind and crosswind component was expected, and the most expeditious straight-in approach could be conducted. The after-hours ATIS made no mention of a closure. The runway 33L runway lights were illuminated normally. We advised ZFW of our intended landing runway prior to being cleared for a visual approach to sps. Ft worth did not mention a closure (nor was it their responsibility to do so, but it would not be unusual for center to be readily aware of such a closure and tell us). When sps tower opened, I telephoned and spoke with an enlisted controller. He said the NOTAM had been issued in error and runway 33L/15R was not actually closed. He said the NOTAM was meant to indicate runway 33R/15L closed, but airport auths had not actually closed any runways, having changed their minds before leaving for the weekend. We now know the NOTAM was incorrect in 2 ways, there was no runway closure at all, and the 'proposed' closure would not have impacted our flight. But our failure to comprehend a NOTAM demonstrates the importance of thorough preflight planning. Our paperwork often seems daunting, in addition to flight plan specifics and WX, general NOTAMS, fdc NOTAMS and field reports contribute to an abundance of information, some of it extraneous to our operation. Information as dire as a runway closure is often buried in paragraphs of recurring reports that have been issued and noted previously (for instance, this particular release included about 1 page concerning a 1 degree course change on every sbound IAP at dfw, which we have seen for many weeks). We must allow the time and effort to examine every sentence of information provided for flight planning.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT LANDS ON RWY NOTAMED CLOSED.

Narrative: SELECTED RWY 33L FOR LNDG AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. BECAME AWARE THE NEXT DAY THAT RWY 33L/15R WAS LISTED IN NOTAMS AS OTS, ALONG WITH ITS PARALLEL TXWY 'D.' UPON FURTHER REVIEW, IT WAS APPARENT I OVERLOOKED THE NOTAM THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH DISPATCH PAPERWORK. AT TIME OF APCH AND LNDG SPS TWR WAS CLOSED. DECISION TO UTILIZE RWY 33L WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: WIND RPTED IN THE HRLY SEQUENCE ABOUT 40 MINS PRIOR WAS LIGHT (6) FROM THE SE, ESSENTIALLY NOT ELIMINATING ANY RWY FROM CONSIDERATION. NOT WANTING TO UTILIZE RWY 17/35 DUE TO A SPECIAL TFC PATTERN PROC THAT PREVENTS RAMP AREA OVERFLT AND CONFLICTS WITH MIL TRAINING ACFT. WHILE PROBABLY NOT AN ISSUE AT NIGHT WITH TWR CLOSED, I PREFER NOT TO EXECUTE THE PROC FOR PAX COMFORT REASONS. RWY 33L IS EXTREMELY WIDE AND LONG, A MINIMAL TAILWIND AND XWIND COMPONENT WAS EXPECTED, AND THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS STRAIGHT-IN APCH COULD BE CONDUCTED. THE AFTER-HRS ATIS MADE NO MENTION OF A CLOSURE. THE RWY 33L RWY LIGHTS WERE ILLUMINATED NORMALLY. WE ADVISED ZFW OF OUR INTENDED LNDG RWY PRIOR TO BEING CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO SPS. FT WORTH DID NOT MENTION A CLOSURE (NOR WAS IT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE UNUSUAL FOR CTR TO BE READILY AWARE OF SUCH A CLOSURE AND TELL US). WHEN SPS TWR OPENED, I TELEPHONED AND SPOKE WITH AN ENLISTED CTLR. HE SAID THE NOTAM HAD BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR AND RWY 33L/15R WAS NOT ACTUALLY CLOSED. HE SAID THE NOTAM WAS MEANT TO INDICATE RWY 33R/15L CLOSED, BUT ARPT AUTHS HAD NOT ACTUALLY CLOSED ANY RWYS, HAVING CHANGED THEIR MINDS BEFORE LEAVING FOR THE WEEKEND. WE NOW KNOW THE NOTAM WAS INCORRECT IN 2 WAYS, THERE WAS NO RWY CLOSURE AT ALL, AND THE 'PROPOSED' CLOSURE WOULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED OUR FLT. BUT OUR FAILURE TO COMPREHEND A NOTAM DEMONSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THOROUGH PREFLT PLANNING. OUR PAPERWORK OFTEN SEEMS DAUNTING, IN ADDITION TO FLT PLAN SPECIFICS AND WX, GENERAL NOTAMS, FDC NOTAMS AND FIELD RPTS CONTRIBUTE TO AN ABUNDANCE OF INFO, SOME OF IT EXTRANEOUS TO OUR OP. INFO AS DIRE AS A RWY CLOSURE IS OFTEN BURIED IN PARAGRAPHS OF RECURRING RPTS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND NOTED PREVIOUSLY (FOR INSTANCE, THIS PARTICULAR RELEASE INCLUDED ABOUT 1 PAGE CONCERNING A 1 DEG COURSE CHANGE ON EVERY SBOUND IAP AT DFW, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN FOR MANY WKS). WE MUST ALLOW THE TIME AND EFFORT TO EXAMINE EVERY SENTENCE OF INFO PROVIDED FOR FLT PLANNING.

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.