Narrative:

20 mins out from sav, ATIS indicated tower closed. Macon FSS had current WX and advisories. Called macon FSS for WX and advisories. WX was reported as clear skies, visibility unlimited, wind calm. No other advisories were given by FSS. 4 hours earlier, we (same crew and aircraft) flew the visual approach to runway 27 at sav, and had no reason to expect anything but a visual approach to runway 27. We set up navaids for a visual approach to runway 27. VOR runway 27 approach was briefed, RMI was set to runway 9 LOM. As the approach was briefed we activated the pilot controled lighting on communication #2. Sav approach repeatedly asked if we had the airport in sight. We informed the controller we had the beacon, however, we would call the airport in sight when we had a good visual. About 5 mi out we made visual contact with the VASI to runway 27. We reported the airport in sight and were cleared for the visual approach, no runway specified. We gave landing advisories on CTAF for runway 27 3 times, approximately 10, 5, and 2 mi and also once clear of the runway. The airport was well illuminated by moonlight, taxiway lights, and an adjacent ramp area to runway 27. The runway numbers, centerline markings and touchdown zone were easily identifiable. After landing we noticed just how dark the runway was. The runway lights were out, all the adjacent lights were illuminated. There were no NOTAMS regarding runway lighting. ATIS, macon FSS, and sav approach gave no indication that runway 27 would not be illuminated. Runway 36 and runway 18 were illuminated. Since runway 9 and runway 27 is the longer of the 2 runways, it was, in my opinion, the more favorable runway. I also feel both runways should be illuminated. After calling FSS I found it to be local procedure to illuminate one runway at a time. This information should be disseminated, or the VASI should be turned off with runway 27 lighting.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC IN AN ERJ145 LANDS ON RWY 27 AT SAV WITHOUT HIRL ACTIVATED DURING A NIGHT OP.

Narrative: 20 MINS OUT FROM SAV, ATIS INDICATED TWR CLOSED. MACON FSS HAD CURRENT WX AND ADVISORIES. CALLED MACON FSS FOR WX AND ADVISORIES. WX WAS RPTED AS CLR SKIES, VISIBILITY UNLIMITED, WIND CALM. NO OTHER ADVISORIES WERE GIVEN BY FSS. 4 HRS EARLIER, WE (SAME CREW AND ACFT) FLEW THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27 AT SAV, AND HAD NO REASON TO EXPECT ANYTHING BUT A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27. WE SET UP NAVAIDS FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27. VOR RWY 27 APCH WAS BRIEFED, RMI WAS SET TO RWY 9 LOM. AS THE APCH WAS BRIEFED WE ACTIVATED THE PLT CTLED LIGHTING ON COM #2. SAV APCH REPEATEDLY ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE INFORMED THE CTLR WE HAD THE BEACON, HOWEVER, WE WOULD CALL THE ARPT IN SIGHT WHEN WE HAD A GOOD VISUAL. ABOUT 5 MI OUT WE MADE VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE VASI TO RWY 27. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH, NO RWY SPECIFIED. WE GAVE LNDG ADVISORIES ON CTAF FOR RWY 27 3 TIMES, APPROX 10, 5, AND 2 MI AND ALSO ONCE CLR OF THE RWY. THE ARPT WAS WELL ILLUMINATED BY MOONLIGHT, TXWY LIGHTS, AND AN ADJACENT RAMP AREA TO RWY 27. THE RWY NUMBERS, CTRLINE MARKINGS AND TOUCHDOWN ZONE WERE EASILY IDENTIFIABLE. AFTER LNDG WE NOTICED JUST HOW DARK THE RWY WAS. THE RWY LIGHTS WERE OUT, ALL THE ADJACENT LIGHTS WERE ILLUMINATED. THERE WERE NO NOTAMS REGARDING RWY LIGHTING. ATIS, MACON FSS, AND SAV APCH GAVE NO INDICATION THAT RWY 27 WOULD NOT BE ILLUMINATED. RWY 36 AND RWY 18 WERE ILLUMINATED. SINCE RWY 9 AND RWY 27 IS THE LONGER OF THE 2 RWYS, IT WAS, IN MY OPINION, THE MORE FAVORABLE RWY. I ALSO FEEL BOTH RWYS SHOULD BE ILLUMINATED. AFTER CALLING FSS I FOUND IT TO BE LCL PROC TO ILLUMINATE ONE RWY AT A TIME. THIS INFO SHOULD BE DISSEMINATED, OR THE VASI SHOULD BE TURNED OFF WITH RWY 27 LIGHTING.

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.