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.