Narrative:

ATIS reported runway 2L and runway 2R active. Cleared to enter pattern left downwind from 11 mi northeast of airport (runway 2L closest runway to my position). After turning downwind for runway 2L, I was cleared to land #2 behind a twin on final. Twin appeared to be on short final for runway 2L from my downwind perspective. I lost sight of twin prior to turning base leg and assumed it landed before I was on final for runway 2L (apparently the twin landed on runway 2R). No other known aircraft in the pattern or on the runways. After landing on runway 2L, tower notified me that I landed on the wrong runway (runway 2L instead of runway 2R). Contributing factors to the event: 1) tower operations were using nonstandard pattern procedures on this particular day, ie, left downwind for runway 2R requiring an aircraft to cross final approach path of runway 2L against logic. 2) I am based at pdk (event location). In my experience, tower always positioned approaching aircraft on downwind (either right or left) to closest runway or asked aircraft to cross midfield and enter downwind prior to base and final. Only occasionally have I been asked to change runways while on final approach and, when requested, the dialogue was very clear and direct. 3) upon the tower's initial clearance, I may have read back left downwind for runway 2R, but I distinctly remember processing the logic of left downwind for landing runway 2L given my initial approach direction of flight and past tower procedures at pdk. 4) upon receiving clearance to land behind the twin, I don't recall reading back the runway -- only 'xyz, cleared to land behind the twin.' twin appeared to be on final for runway 2L. 5) situation appeared to look 'normal' upon turning final for runway 2L. No other traffic on runways to alert me to a problem, etc. I do remember some radio conversation between the tower and an aircraft taxiing to cross runway 2L while I was on short final, but then the tower had them 'hold short' of runway 2L. I assumed the tower had just briefly forgotten that I was on final given the very low traffic at that time. I didn't see the aircraft, but I recall preparing for a go around should the aircraft appear on the runway. In my opinion, the problem was caused by a chain of events that resulted in my psychological interpretation of the situation to 'override' the actual exchange of communications. In other words, I didn't process communications well and the tower was not sensitive to the effect which was stimulated by the change in pattern procedures on this particular day. If tower had requested that I cross midfield for 'right' downwind for runway 2R, situation would not have occurred. Also, they could have verified that I understood landing runway 2R instead of runway 2L given they positioned me into the runway 2L pattern. Also, ATIS reported that both runways were active setting up the misinterp by pilots. I called the tower after landing to discuss what happened and how we could prevent such misunderstanding in the future. They were very helpful and open to the discussion. The individual I spoke with stated that I was not the first to do this and other pilots had done the same thing earlier in the day. Why didn't they correct their procedures or at least follow the aircraft through the pattern to verify actions are the same as clrncs, given the unique change in procedures? The tower personnel also stated that construction on the property was the reason they were using runway 2R more often than runway 2L.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE36 SINGLE PLT CLRED FOR THE APCH ON RWY 2R, BUT LANDED ON RWY 2L AT PDK.

Narrative: ATIS RPTED RWY 2L AND RWY 2R ACTIVE. CLRED TO ENTER PATTERN L DOWNWIND FROM 11 MI NE OF ARPT (RWY 2L CLOSEST RWY TO MY POS). AFTER TURNING DOWNWIND FOR RWY 2L, I WAS CLRED TO LAND #2 BEHIND A TWIN ON FINAL. TWIN APPEARED TO BE ON SHORT FINAL FOR RWY 2L FROM MY DOWNWIND PERSPECTIVE. I LOST SIGHT OF TWIN PRIOR TO TURNING BASE LEG AND ASSUMED IT LANDED BEFORE I WAS ON FINAL FOR RWY 2L (APPARENTLY THE TWIN LANDED ON RWY 2R). NO OTHER KNOWN ACFT IN THE PATTERN OR ON THE RWYS. AFTER LNDG ON RWY 2L, TWR NOTIFIED ME THAT I LANDED ON THE WRONG RWY (RWY 2L INSTEAD OF RWY 2R). CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE EVENT: 1) TWR OPS WERE USING NONSTANDARD PATTERN PROCS ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY, IE, L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 2R REQUIRING AN ACFT TO CROSS FINAL APCH PATH OF RWY 2L AGAINST LOGIC. 2) I AM BASED AT PDK (EVENT LOCATION). IN MY EXPERIENCE, TWR ALWAYS POSITIONED APCHING ACFT ON DOWNWIND (EITHER R OR L) TO CLOSEST RWY OR ASKED ACFT TO CROSS MIDFIELD AND ENTER DOWNWIND PRIOR TO BASE AND FINAL. ONLY OCCASIONALLY HAVE I BEEN ASKED TO CHANGE RWYS WHILE ON FINAL APCH AND, WHEN REQUESTED, THE DIALOGUE WAS VERY CLR AND DIRECT. 3) UPON THE TWR'S INITIAL CLRNC, I MAY HAVE READ BACK L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 2R, BUT I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER PROCESSING THE LOGIC OF L DOWNWIND FOR LNDG RWY 2L GIVEN MY INITIAL APCH DIRECTION OF FLT AND PAST TWR PROCS AT PDK. 4) UPON RECEIVING CLRNC TO LAND BEHIND THE TWIN, I DON'T RECALL READING BACK THE RWY -- ONLY 'XYZ, CLRED TO LAND BEHIND THE TWIN.' TWIN APPEARED TO BE ON FINAL FOR RWY 2L. 5) SIT APPEARED TO LOOK 'NORMAL' UPON TURNING FINAL FOR RWY 2L. NO OTHER TFC ON RWYS TO ALERT ME TO A PROB, ETC. I DO REMEMBER SOME RADIO CONVERSATION BTWN THE TWR AND AN ACFT TAXIING TO CROSS RWY 2L WHILE I WAS ON SHORT FINAL, BUT THEN THE TWR HAD THEM 'HOLD SHORT' OF RWY 2L. I ASSUMED THE TWR HAD JUST BRIEFLY FORGOTTEN THAT I WAS ON FINAL GIVEN THE VERY LOW TFC AT THAT TIME. I DIDN'T SEE THE ACFT, BUT I RECALL PREPARING FOR A GAR SHOULD THE ACFT APPEAR ON THE RWY. IN MY OPINION, THE PROB WAS CAUSED BY A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT RESULTED IN MY PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERP OF THE SIT TO 'OVERRIDE' THE ACTUAL EXCHANGE OF COMS. IN OTHER WORDS, I DIDN'T PROCESS COMS WELL AND THE TWR WAS NOT SENSITIVE TO THE EFFECT WHICH WAS STIMULATED BY THE CHANGE IN PATTERN PROCS ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY. IF TWR HAD REQUESTED THAT I CROSS MIDFIELD FOR 'R' DOWNWIND FOR RWY 2R, SIT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. ALSO, THEY COULD HAVE VERIFIED THAT I UNDERSTOOD LNDG RWY 2R INSTEAD OF RWY 2L GIVEN THEY POSITIONED ME INTO THE RWY 2L PATTERN. ALSO, ATIS RPTED THAT BOTH RWYS WERE ACTIVE SETTING UP THE MISINTERP BY PLTS. I CALLED THE TWR AFTER LNDG TO DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW WE COULD PREVENT SUCH MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE FUTURE. THEY WERE VERY HELPFUL AND OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION. THE INDIVIDUAL I SPOKE WITH STATED THAT I WAS NOT THE FIRST TO DO THIS AND OTHER PLTS HAD DONE THE SAME THING EARLIER IN THE DAY. WHY DIDN'T THEY CORRECT THEIR PROCS OR AT LEAST FOLLOW THE ACFT THROUGH THE PATTERN TO VERIFY ACTIONS ARE THE SAME AS CLRNCS, GIVEN THE UNIQUE CHANGE IN PROCS? THE TWR PERSONNEL ALSO STATED THAT CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY WAS THE REASON THEY WERE USING RWY 2R MORE OFTEN THAN RWY 2L.

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.