MLG CREW LANDED ON THE WRONG RWY AT SLC.

Narrative

WE WERE APCHING SLC. THE WX WAS CLR BELOW ABOUT FL180 WITH UNRESTR VISIBILITY. WE WERE AT 15000 FT; 11 NM S OF FFU VOR WHEN SLC APCH CTL TOLD US TO CROSS FFU AT OR ABOVE 11000 FT; INTERCEPT THE LOC FOR SLC RWY 34R; AND CLRED US FOR THE ILS TO THAT RWY. WE CONFIRMED THE PROPER SET-UP OF ALL INSTS AND NAVAIDS; AND I INTERCEPTED THE LOC. CONTINUING INBOUND ON THE LOC; I COMPLIED WITH THE ALT STEPDOWNS ON THE APCH PLATE. I BEGAN XCHKING THE BRIGHTLY LIT RWY AHEAD OF US AT ABOUT 15 MI FROM THE ARPT AND CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE ON THE E SIDE OF THE COMPLEX (RWY 34L IS W OF THE TERMINAL AREA; RWY 34R AND RWY 35 ARE E) AND THAT WE WERE STILL CTRED ON THE LOC. INTERCEPTING THE GLIDE PATH FROM ABOVE; I LANDED WITH ALL ILS INDICATIONS NORMAL AND CTRED. DURING ROLLOUT; I REALIZED WE WERE MUCH FARTHER E OF THE TERMINAL COMPLEX THAN WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR RWY 34R. THE TWR THEN SAID THAT IT APPEARED TO HIM THAT WE WERE LINED UP WITH RWY 35 WHEN WE WERE ON SHORT FINAL; AND THAT WE HAD LANDED ON RWY 35 INSTEAD OF RWY 34R AS CLRED. WE CONFIRMED WITH TWR THAT WE HAD IN FACT FLOWN THE LOC TO THE RWY WITH THE CORRECT ILS FREQ SELECTED; AT WHICH TIME HE (TWR) COMMENTED THAT A FLT FROM ANOTHER COMMERCIAL CARRIER HAD DONE THE SAME THING EARLIER IN THE EVENING. MY FO AND I DISCUSSED THE APCH AT LENGTH; CONFIRMING THAT IT WAS FLOWN ACCURATELY WITH THE CORRECT NAVAID AND INST SET-UP. WE BOTH COMMENTED THAT WE HAD DEFINITELY SEEN THE LIGHTS OF RWY 34L AND RWY 35; NEITHER OF US COULD RECALL SEEING THE APCH OR RWY LIGHTS OF RWY 34R. WE ALSO NOTED THAT DURING ROLLOUT; WITH THE ACFT SLIGHTLY L OF CTRLINE ON RWY 35 (TOWARD RWY 34R); THE LOC WAS DISPLACED SLIGHTLY R (AWAY FROM RWY 34R) ON BOTH THE HSI AND HGS. SINCE I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS ARPT; I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE COMBINATION OF A CTRED UP ILS AND A BRIGHTLY LIT RWY (ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF THE ARPT) IN FRONT OF ME DECREASED MY FOCUS ON THE OVERALL LAYOUT OF THE ARPT COMPLEX AND RESULTED IN A LNDG ON THE INCORRECT RWY. I WOULD ALSO HOPE THAT THE TWR CTLR WOULD NOT HESITATE TO DIRECT A GAR SHOULD A QUESTIONABLE OR HAZARDOUS SIT ARISE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 442741: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: THE ACCURATE ILS GUIDANCE TO A RWY OTHER THAN TUNED FOR IS BAFFLING. A SIMILAR INCIDENT WITH ANOTHER MAJOR ACR SHORTLY BEFORE MAKES IT EVEN MORE SO. ATIS INDICATED THAT APCHS WERE BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 34L/R AND RWY 35. 3 BRIGHTLY LIT RWYS WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ADDED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. THE 2 BRIGHTEST LIT RWYS NOT BEING THE RWY CLRED TO ADDED TO A LOSS OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. THE PNF'S LACK OF EXPERIENCE AT THE ARPT IN QUESTION WAS ALSO A FACTOR. TWR INDICATED THAT THEY OBSERVED US LINED UP ON THE WRONG RWY. A GAR COULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED.