Narrative:

We established the aircraft on the ILS 24R and were cleared to land. My first officer had briefed me on the NOTAMS that were given on ATIS. After being cleared to land. Tower advised us: 'west/O need to respond. Traffic short final in trail. Make first available turn off.' with that statement I readjusted the power and confign of the aircraft so we could make the first available turn off, which in this case caused the aircraft to land within the displaced threshold. After I was committed to landing I saw the displaced threshold markings and remembered the briefing. The chain of events happened within 300' AGL. The crew's actions were not in neglect, but as a result of the tower asking for a special action on a critical phase of the approach, therefore leaving minimal time for decision making, and to the severity of the situation. Our intentions were to land as we intended 2000' long because of the displaced threshold. However, the aircraft landed prior to the markings therefore on the closed portion of the runway. I believe the controller's actions prompted the crew to reconsider our profile and alter our perception and judgement resulting in the wrong decision, or better word (action). A normal landing would have been carried out and the maximum performance of the aircraft and crew would not have been initiated if the tower did not make this request. The crew attempted to alleviate a problem for the tower by shortening the runway time due to the confign the tower put themselves in, and if spacing was adequate this report would not be an issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LNDG ON CLOSED PORTION OF RWY.

Narrative: WE ESTABLISHED THE ACFT ON THE ILS 24R AND WERE CLRED TO LAND. MY F/O HAD BRIEFED ME ON THE NOTAMS THAT WERE GIVEN ON ATIS. AFTER BEING CLRED TO LAND. TWR ADVISED US: 'W/O NEED TO RESPOND. TFC SHORT FINAL IN TRAIL. MAKE FIRST AVAILABLE TURN OFF.' WITH THAT STATEMENT I READJUSTED THE PWR AND CONFIGN OF THE ACFT SO WE COULD MAKE THE FIRST AVAILABLE TURN OFF, WHICH IN THIS CASE CAUSED THE ACFT TO LAND WITHIN THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD. AFTER I WAS COMMITTED TO LNDG I SAW THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD MARKINGS AND REMEMBERED THE BRIEFING. THE CHAIN OF EVENTS HAPPENED WITHIN 300' AGL. THE CREW'S ACTIONS WERE NOT IN NEGLECT, BUT AS A RESULT OF THE TWR ASKING FOR A SPECIAL ACTION ON A CRITICAL PHASE OF THE APCH, THEREFORE LEAVING MINIMAL TIME FOR DECISION MAKING, AND TO THE SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION. OUR INTENTIONS WERE TO LAND AS WE INTENDED 2000' LONG BECAUSE OF THE DISPLACED THRESHOLD. HOWEVER, THE ACFT LANDED PRIOR TO THE MARKINGS THEREFORE ON THE CLOSED PORTION OF THE RWY. I BELIEVE THE CTLR'S ACTIONS PROMPTED THE CREW TO RECONSIDER OUR PROFILE AND ALTER OUR PERCEPTION AND JUDGEMENT RESULTING IN THE WRONG DECISION, OR BETTER WORD (ACTION). A NORMAL LNDG WOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AND THE MAX PERFORMANCE OF THE ACFT AND CREW WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED IF THE TWR DID NOT MAKE THIS REQUEST. THE CREW ATTEMPTED TO ALLEVIATE A PROB FOR THE TWR BY SHORTENING THE RWY TIME DUE TO THE CONFIGN THE TWR PUT THEMSELVES IN, AND IF SPACING WAS ADEQUATE THIS RPT WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.