Narrative:

During arrival at the winnipeg international airport in canada, we planned on and briefed landing on runway 36. This runway was longest and had CAT ii lighting, even though we just had CAT I capability. Just before the approach we were told that all lighting for that runway was lost. Consequently we had to brief quickly for the CAT I ILS to runway 31. Minimums were 2600 ft RVR and current RVR was hovering near 3000 ft RVR at the time of the approach. The first officer was the PF and his flame in the landing was high due to the poor visibility and the different canadian runway markings. After landing, we were told to 'back track on runway 31 to join taxiway V for the ramp.' visibility varied on the ground and in some areas seemed well below 3000 ft RVR. We passed taxiway a on the back taxi. The next taxiway on the airport diagram was taxiway V. Taxiway/runway signs were poorly lit and hard to see. I saw a blue lit taxiway to my left and turned on it. Confusion set. The first officer thought we were on a runway, but was not sure. I felt safe that at least we were on a taxiway due to the blue lights and yellow taxi line. We had in fact turned onto runway 7/25 instead of taxiway V. No traffic conflicts resulted. Eventually, as we taxied down runway 7 to the east, we saw green runway stant bans. Confusion was very high at this point. Ground control noticed we had lost our way and told us to continue and turn right on taxiway F and continue to the gate. We accomplished this with no further incident. Contributing factors were a long duty day after a reduced rest period the night before, low visibility, and poorly marked taxiway/runways. Also, the nonstandard use of blue taxi lights on a displaced threshold/runway when the airport diagram depicts a regular displaced threshold. In the future, I will stop and set my brakes and notify ATC if I am unsure of my location. A note of nonstandard markings on the front of the airport diagram and a note on low visual progressive taxi capability of ground control would be good factors in preventing a future occurrence. I would have asked for a progressive if I thought they had ground radar.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER LNDG YW3G IN POOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AND BACK-TAXIING ON THE RWY, A CL65 CREW BECAME CONFUSED AND UNSURE OF THEIR LOCATION.

Narrative: DURING ARR AT THE WINNIPEG INTL ARPT IN CANADA, WE PLANNED ON AND BRIEFED LNDG ON RWY 36. THIS RWY WAS LONGEST AND HAD CAT II LIGHTING, EVEN THOUGH WE JUST HAD CAT I CAPABILITY. JUST BEFORE THE APCH WE WERE TOLD THAT ALL LIGHTING FOR THAT RWY WAS LOST. CONSEQUENTLY WE HAD TO BRIEF QUICKLY FOR THE CAT I ILS TO RWY 31. MINIMUMS WERE 2600 FT RVR AND CURRENT RVR WAS HOVERING NEAR 3000 FT RVR AT THE TIME OF THE APCH. THE FO WAS THE PF AND HIS FLAME IN THE LNDG WAS HIGH DUE TO THE POOR VISIBILITY AND THE DIFFERENT CANADIAN RWY MARKINGS. AFTER LNDG, WE WERE TOLD TO 'BACK TRACK ON RWY 31 TO JOIN TXWY V FOR THE RAMP.' VISIBILITY VARIED ON THE GND AND IN SOME AREAS SEEMED WELL BELOW 3000 FT RVR. WE PASSED TXWY A ON THE BACK TAXI. THE NEXT TXWY ON THE ARPT DIAGRAM WAS TXWY V. TXWY/RWY SIGNS WERE POORLY LIT AND HARD TO SEE. I SAW A BLUE LIT TXWY TO MY L AND TURNED ON IT. CONFUSION SET. THE FO THOUGHT WE WERE ON A RWY, BUT WAS NOT SURE. I FELT SAFE THAT AT LEAST WE WERE ON A TXWY DUE TO THE BLUE LIGHTS AND YELLOW TAXI LINE. WE HAD IN FACT TURNED ONTO RWY 7/25 INSTEAD OF TXWY V. NO TFC CONFLICTS RESULTED. EVENTUALLY, AS WE TAXIED DOWN RWY 7 TO THE E, WE SAW GREEN RWY STANT BANS. CONFUSION WAS VERY HIGH AT THIS POINT. GND CTL NOTICED WE HAD LOST OUR WAY AND TOLD US TO CONTINUE AND TURN R ON TXWY F AND CONTINUE TO THE GATE. WE ACCOMPLISHED THIS WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE A LONG DUTY DAY AFTER A REDUCED REST PERIOD THE NIGHT BEFORE, LOW VISIBILITY, AND POORLY MARKED TXWY/RWYS. ALSO, THE NONSTANDARD USE OF BLUE TAXI LIGHTS ON A DISPLACED THRESHOLD/RWY WHEN THE ARPT DIAGRAM DEPICTS A REGULAR DISPLACED THRESHOLD. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL STOP AND SET MY BRAKES AND NOTIFY ATC IF I AM UNSURE OF MY LOCATION. A NOTE OF NONSTANDARD MARKINGS ON THE FRONT OF THE ARPT DIAGRAM AND A NOTE ON LOW VISUAL PROGRESSIVE TAXI CAPABILITY OF GND CTL WOULD BE GOOD FACTORS IN PREVENTING A FUTURE OCCURRENCE. I WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR A PROGRESSIVE IF I THOUGHT THEY HAD GND RADAR.

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.