Narrative:

Due to thunderstorms in the area our flight to evansville was delayed. We departed approximately 3.5 hours late, which put our arrival time into evv after the tower closed. Based on the current WX that we had from ZID and the WX on our dispatch release (which was 40 mins old) we were vectored for runway 22 at evv. The captain (PNF) had confirmed that the localizer had been idented (per the approach checklist) but that the end of the identify sounded obscured. After we intercepted the localizer and GS, I noticed that the GS seemed to be a steeper angle than normal. I asked the captain if the GS was 3.5 degrees. I didn't receive an answer. As we approached the runway it was becoming apparent that the GS must be inoperative and that we were much higher than we were supposed to be. We decided to go around and try the landing again, but we would disregard the GS. It should be noted that runway 22 has no VASI or PAPI. We decided to begin the descent at the LOM at the recommended descent rate for 3 degrees GS, which would put us in position to land crossing the runway threshold. The second approach was uneventful with the exception of a GPWS 'sink rate' and GS just prior to landing. Once on the ground we had later learned that the ILS to runway 4 was active (they both use the same frequency 109.9). Upon learning this, we were not sure if the tower had not told the center that they had switched the ILS to the other runway, although we did see other aircraft vectored to runway 4.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL65 MAKES APCH TO OPPOSITE RWY THAN ILS WITH SAME FREQ AT EVV.

Narrative: DUE TO TSTMS IN THE AREA OUR FLT TO EVANSVILLE WAS DELAYED. WE DEPARTED APPROX 3.5 HRS LATE, WHICH PUT OUR ARR TIME INTO EVV AFTER THE TWR CLOSED. BASED ON THE CURRENT WX THAT WE HAD FROM ZID AND THE WX ON OUR DISPATCH RELEASE (WHICH WAS 40 MINS OLD) WE WERE VECTORED FOR RWY 22 AT EVV. THE CAPT (PNF) HAD CONFIRMED THAT THE LOC HAD BEEN IDENTED (PER THE APCH CHKLIST) BUT THAT THE END OF THE IDENT SOUNDED OBSCURED. AFTER WE INTERCEPTED THE LOC AND GS, I NOTICED THAT THE GS SEEMED TO BE A STEEPER ANGLE THAN NORMAL. I ASKED THE CAPT IF THE GS WAS 3.5 DEGS. I DIDN'T RECEIVE AN ANSWER. AS WE APCHED THE RWY IT WAS BECOMING APPARENT THAT THE GS MUST BE INOP AND THAT WE WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE. WE DECIDED TO GO AROUND AND TRY THE LNDG AGAIN, BUT WE WOULD DISREGARD THE GS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT RWY 22 HAS NO VASI OR PAPI. WE DECIDED TO BEGIN THE DSCNT AT THE LOM AT THE RECOMMENDED DSCNT RATE FOR 3 DEGS GS, WHICH WOULD PUT US IN POS TO LAND XING THE RWY THRESHOLD. THE SECOND APCH WAS UNEVENTFUL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A GPWS 'SINK RATE' AND GS JUST PRIOR TO LNDG. ONCE ON THE GND WE HAD LATER LEARNED THAT THE ILS TO RWY 4 WAS ACTIVE (THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FREQ 109.9). UPON LEARNING THIS, WE WERE NOT SURE IF THE TWR HAD NOT TOLD THE CTR THAT THEY HAD SWITCHED THE ILS TO THE OTHER RWY, ALTHOUGH WE DID SEE OTHER ACFT VECTORED TO RWY 4.

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.