Narrative:

Last leg of day -- long day that began at early morning, flying into cyyz at night for what ATIS advertised as ILS runway 6 approach. Mind set for that. Downwind, approach asked if we had the field in sight. We replied in the affirmative as he gave us a base leg vector. He cleared us for the visual to runway 5. I still had in my mind that we were going to runway 6, and that runway was clearly visible, very well illuminated, and physically closest. The controller called and said it looked like we were lining up for runway 6 (we were) but reminded us we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 5. Altitude was approximately 2500-2600 ft. He then stated that we were below the 3000 ft altitude restr for noise abatement on runway 5. Since we were set up for runway 6, we were not aware of the approach plate for visual approachs to runway 5. (Fatigue definitely a factor in this whole event.) leveled off and lined up to runway 5 for uneventful landing. Runway 5 approach lighting vastly inferior to runway 6, making it effectively invisible on base leg, especially with the mindset leaning to runway 6. We had briefed runway 6 (in accordance with ATIS) but should have been prepared for either runway. Could also brief fatigue level to enhance awareness between crew members.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CAPT LINES UP WITH THE WRONG RWY DURING A VISUAL APCH AND DSNDED BELOW NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS FOR THE ASSIGNED RWY.

Narrative: LAST LEG OF DAY -- LONG DAY THAT BEGAN AT EARLY MORNING, FLYING INTO CYYZ AT NIGHT FOR WHAT ATIS ADVERTISED AS ILS RWY 6 APCH. MIND SET FOR THAT. DOWNWIND, APCH ASKED IF WE HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT. WE REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AS HE GAVE US A BASE LEG VECTOR. HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 5. I STILL HAD IN MY MIND THAT WE WERE GOING TO RWY 6, AND THAT RWY WAS CLRLY VISIBLE, VERY WELL ILLUMINATED, AND PHYSICALLY CLOSEST. THE CTLR CALLED AND SAID IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE LINING UP FOR RWY 6 (WE WERE) BUT REMINDED US WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 5. ALT WAS APPROX 2500-2600 FT. HE THEN STATED THAT WE WERE BELOW THE 3000 FT ALT RESTR FOR NOISE ABATEMENT ON RWY 5. SINCE WE WERE SET UP FOR RWY 6, WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE APCH PLATE FOR VISUAL APCHS TO RWY 5. (FATIGUE DEFINITELY A FACTOR IN THIS WHOLE EVENT.) LEVELED OFF AND LINED UP TO RWY 5 FOR UNEVENTFUL LNDG. RWY 5 APCH LIGHTING VASTLY INFERIOR TO RWY 6, MAKING IT EFFECTIVELY INVISIBLE ON BASE LEG, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MINDSET LEANING TO RWY 6. WE HAD BRIEFED RWY 6 (IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATIS) BUT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR EITHER RWY. COULD ALSO BRIEF FATIGUE LEVEL TO ENHANCE AWARENESS BTWN CREW MEMBERS.

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.