MD80 CREW WAS ACCUSED OF LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY AT LAS.

Date: 2003-03 · Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model

Anomalies: conflict-airborne-conflict|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|ground-incursion-runway

Synopsis

MD80 CREW WAS ACCUSED OF LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY AT LAS.

Narrative

LNDG INTO LAS ON WRONG RWY. WE EXPECTED RWY 25L FOR ARR; BUT WERE GIVEN RWY 19L BY APCH. WE WERE KEPT FAST FOR APCH CTL AND WERE GIVEN THE VISUAL AS WE UNDERSTOOD IT FOR RWY 19L. WHEN TRANSFERRED TO TWR; THEY (ACCORDING TO THEIR TAPE) CLRED US TO LAND RWY 19R AND I READ BACK RWY 19R. IN MY MIND; I NEVER PICKED UP ON THE CHANGE. BEING HIGH AND FAST WITH CONFLICTING VISUAL TFC WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN OUR NOT PICKING UP ON THE RWY CHANGE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 577589: I WAS FO ON A FLT TO LAS. UPON ARRIVING INTO THE LAS AREA; WE WERE CLRED THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19L; LNDG ON RWY 19L; AND THEN WERE INFORMED TO CALL LAS TWR. UPON CALLING TWR; WE WERE INFORMED THAT WE LANDED ON THE WRONG RWY. THE FACTS AS I SAW THEM ARE AS FOLLOWS: WE WERE ARRIVING INTO LAS FROM THE E AND WERE KEPT HIGH AND FAST BY ATC UNTIL JUST INSIDE THE MOUNTAIN RANGE TO THE E OF LAS. AT ABOUT 25 NM E OF LAS; WE WERE APPROX 7000 FT AND 250 KIAS; WHICH WE HELD UNTIL INSIDE OF 15 NM FROM LAS; WHERE WE WERE THEN INSTRUCTED TO SLOW TO 210 KIAS AND GIVEN A HDG AND ALT CHANGE TO 5100 FT. WE WERE ALSO THEN CLRED THE VISUAL TO RWY 19L. WE WERE FURTHER WARNED BY ATC OF A TWIN CESSNA TAKING PHOTOS AT 3700 FT; AND INSTRUCTED BY ATC NOT TO CROSS THE FINAL APCH PATH TO RWY 19L DUE TO THIS TFC. WE THEN BEGAN DSNDING FROM 5100 FT; SLOWING AND CONFIGURING FOR LNDG. WE THEN DISCUSSED AMONGST OURSELVES; BEING SURE NOT TO CROSS THE EXTENDED CTRLINE TO RWY 19L; DUE TO THE TFC WE WERE PREVIOUSLY ADVISED OF. I ANNOUNCED IN THE COCKPIT; AS WE WERE DSNDING FROM 5100 FT FOR THE VISUAL; THAT I WOULD STOP AT 4000 FT IF NEEDED; TO ACQUIRE THE CESSNA IN OUR AREA AND DE-CONFLICT THIS THREAT. PRIOR TO 4000 FT; WE HAD A TA FOR THIS TFC. CAPT VISUALLY SIGHTED THE TFC FIRST; AND THEN I DID. IT ENDED UP BEING NO FACTOR; AND WE CONTINUED OUR DSCNT FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 19L. I WOULD SAY WE WERE INSIDE OF 5 NM AT THIS POINT. THE LAST THING I HEARD WAS THE CLRNC FOR THE VISUAL RWY 19L ADVISORY NOT TO OVERSHOOT FINAL TO RWY 19L AND CLRNC IN THAT TO LAND. WE LANDED UNEVENTFULLY ON RWY 19L; AND AFTER CLRING THE RWY; WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT LAS TWR. AFTER POSTFLT; CAPT CALLED LAS TWR AND WAS ADVISED WE LANDED ON RWY 19L. TWR STATED ON SHORT FINAL THEY TOLD US 'CLRED TO LAND -- CHANGE RWY TO RWY 19R.' THEY ALSO STATED CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS CALL. I HONESTLY NEVER HEARD THESE INSTRUCTIONS; NOR DO I REMEMBER CAPT ACKNOWLEDGING SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. I DO NOT BELIEVE CAPT RECOGNIZED THIS LATE CHANGE NOR REMEMBERS ACKNOWLEDGING IT. IN SUMMARY; WE WERE KEPT HIGH AND FAST BY ATC. WE HAD A SERIOUS POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND TA TO RESOLVE; AND WERE GIVEN A RWY CHANGE ON SHORT FINAL THAT I DID NOT KNOW OF NOR THAT I ACKNOWLEDGED. WE WOULD HAVE NEVER LANDED RWY 19L WITHOUT CLRNC OR BELIEF OF SUCH CLRNC. LAS TWR ALSO INFORMED CAPT THAT THEY DOUBTED THEY WOULD EVEN FILE A RPT ON THIS EVENT. IN ADDITION; NOTAMS INFORMED US RWY 1L WAS CLOSED TO LNDGS; AND IT WOULD SEEM ILLOGICAL TO LAND RWY 19R; THAT BEING THE CASE.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.