Narrative:

ATIS was reporting light winds and the GPS runway 9 approach in use. Runway 1/19 was reported closed thus confirming NOTAM. The PF programmed the GPS runway 9 approach in the FMS. We were flying on autoplt with the FMS coupled. Approach control cleared us direct to destination. The PF entered direct to airport in the FMS and thus canceled the GPS runway 9 approach previously entered. The direct course to the airport was approximately due north. There is no other authority/authorized approach for runway 9. The PF informed me that he had the runway in sight and I reported this to approach control who then cleared us for the visual approach. I continued the checklist and entered approach and vref numbers in the mfd. When I looked up, I saw we were aligned with the runway and the PF was adjusting to approach speed. I saw a gulfstream turning off the runway onto a parallel taxiway and continuing down the taxiway parallel to our runway. I switched over to tower and advised him runway in sight. We were cleared to land runway 9. At approximately 200 ft, I noticed a beacon on the top of 2 vehicles at the far end of the runway. One looked to be off to the left of the runway, but the other was more in line with the runway. I queried ATC about the vehicles, but by this time the pilot was flaring for landing. I immediately realized what was happening, we were landing on the closed runway! Rather than make a go around this low to the ground, seeing that there were no obstructions or X's on the runway and the vehicles would be no factor considering the length of runway to them and our landing distance required, the PF landed and stopped short of the active runway and approximately 3000 ft from the vehicles at the far end. I informed the tower of our situation, who by now realized what had happened. The problem occurred partly due to my not getting all the checklist items accomplished earlier, due to routing changes, thus not allowing me time to monitor progression of the flight beyond the items at hand. I wrongfully assumed (I know the definition) the PF had aligned the aircraft with the correct runway since he had affirmed 'cleared to land runway 9' after my announcement. A contributing factor was entering direct to destination in the FMS, which took away our preprogrammed approach path and ultimately aligned us with the wrong runway when the airport came in view. Another factor that may have alerted us earlier was the light color of the concrete runway and the faded white runway numbers with no 'X' present. The problem was discovered when I saw the beacons on top of vehicles at the far end of the runway. The corrective action that should have been taken was a go around at the first sighting of the vehicles even though our end of the runway was clear. The corrective actions that have now been taken are that we have established in our SOP to enter the inbound course alignment with the active runway on the FMS and displayed on the mfd when there is no other runway aligning approach for the landing runway for which a visual approach is being conducted. Also when established on final, and the crew is confirming cleared to land, the PF will announce aircraft heading and the pilot monitoring, considering wind correction, will confirm that this is the runway for which clearance has been issued. The quality of human performance suffers when a highly experienced crew that fly together daily let their guard down when monitoring each other's performance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C560 CREW, ARRIVING ILG, LANDED ON A CLOSED RWY.

Narrative: ATIS WAS REPORTING LIGHT WINDS AND THE GPS RWY 9 APCH IN USE. RWY 1/19 WAS RPTED CLOSED THUS CONFIRMING NOTAM. THE PF PROGRAMMED THE GPS RWY 9 APCH IN THE FMS. WE WERE FLYING ON AUTOPLT WITH THE FMS COUPLED. APCH CTL CLRED US DIRECT TO DEST. THE PF ENTERED DIRECT TO ARPT IN THE FMS AND THUS CANCELED THE GPS RWY 9 APCH PREVIOUSLY ENTERED. THE DIRECT COURSE TO THE ARPT WAS APPROX DUE N. THERE IS NO OTHER AUTH APCH FOR RWY 9. THE PF INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT AND I RPTED THIS TO APCH CTL WHO THEN CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH. I CONTINUED THE CHKLIST AND ENTERED APCH AND VREF NUMBERS IN THE MFD. WHEN I LOOKED UP, I SAW WE WERE ALIGNED WITH THE RWY AND THE PF WAS ADJUSTING TO APCH SPD. I SAW A GULFSTREAM TURNING OFF THE RWY ONTO A PARALLEL TXWY AND CONTINUING DOWN THE TXWY PARALLEL TO OUR RWY. I SWITCHED OVER TO TWR AND ADVISED HIM RWY IN SIGHT. WE WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 9. AT APPROX 200 FT, I NOTICED A BEACON ON THE TOP OF 2 VEHICLES AT THE FAR END OF THE RWY. ONE LOOKED TO BE OFF TO THE L OF THE RWY, BUT THE OTHER WAS MORE IN LINE WITH THE RWY. I QUERIED ATC ABOUT THE VEHICLES, BUT BY THIS TIME THE PLT WAS FLARING FOR LNDG. I IMMEDIATELY REALIZED WHAT WAS HAPPENING, WE WERE LNDG ON THE CLOSED RWY! RATHER THAN MAKE A GAR THIS LOW TO THE GND, SEEING THAT THERE WERE NO OBSTRUCTIONS OR X'S ON THE RWY AND THE VEHICLES WOULD BE NO FACTOR CONSIDERING THE LENGTH OF RWY TO THEM AND OUR LNDG DISTANCE REQUIRED, THE PF LANDED AND STOPPED SHORT OF THE ACTIVE RWY AND APPROX 3000 FT FROM THE VEHICLES AT THE FAR END. I INFORMED THE TWR OF OUR SIT, WHO BY NOW REALIZED WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THE PROB OCCURRED PARTLY DUE TO MY NOT GETTING ALL THE CHKLIST ITEMS ACCOMPLISHED EARLIER, DUE TO ROUTING CHANGES, THUS NOT ALLOWING ME TIME TO MONITOR PROGRESSION OF THE FLT BEYOND THE ITEMS AT HAND. I WRONGFULLY ASSUMED (I KNOW THE DEFINITION) THE PF HAD ALIGNED THE ACFT WITH THE CORRECT RWY SINCE HE HAD AFFIRMED 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 9' AFTER MY ANNOUNCEMENT. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS ENTERING DIRECT TO DESTINATION IN THE FMS, WHICH TOOK AWAY OUR PREPROGRAMMED APCH PATH AND ULTIMATELY ALIGNED US WITH THE WRONG RWY WHEN THE ARPT CAME IN VIEW. ANOTHER FACTOR THAT MAY HAVE ALERTED US EARLIER WAS THE LIGHT COLOR OF THE CONCRETE RWY AND THE FADED WHITE RWY NUMBERS WITH NO 'X' PRESENT. THE PROB WAS DISCOVERED WHEN I SAW THE BEACONS ON TOP OF VEHICLES AT THE FAR END OF THE RWY. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN WAS A GAR AT THE FIRST SIGHTING OF THE VEHICLES EVEN THOUGH OUR END OF THE RWY WAS CLR. THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THAT HAVE NOW BEEN TAKEN ARE THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED IN OUR SOP TO ENTER THE INBOUND COURSE ALIGNMENT WITH THE ACTIVE RWY ON THE FMS AND DISPLAYED ON THE MFD WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER RWY ALIGNING APCH FOR THE LNDG RWY FOR WHICH A VISUAL APCH IS BEING CONDUCTED. ALSO WHEN ESTABLISHED ON FINAL, AND THE CREW IS CONFIRMING CLRED TO LAND, THE PF WILL ANNOUNCE ACFT HDG AND THE PLT MONITORING, CONSIDERING WIND CORRECTION, WILL CONFIRM THAT THIS IS THE RWY FOR WHICH CLRNC HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE QUALITY OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE SUFFERS WHEN A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED CREW THAT FLY TOGETHER DAILY LET THEIR GUARD DOWN WHEN MONITORING EACH OTHER'S PERFORMANCE.

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.