AN MU2 PLT RPTS LNDG ON FTG TXWY A BECAUSE IT IS MORE VISUALLY PROMINENT THAN RWY 26.

Narrative

ON APCH TO FTG I OBSERVED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE RWY. THERE ARE TWO TXWYS; A AND C. THESE TXWYS ARE VERY DISTINCT FROM FAR OUT. THE RWY; HOWEVER; BLENDS INTO THE SURROUNDING TERRAIN. I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE TWO TXWYS SIDE BY SIDE. THOUGH I HAVE LANDED AT FTG A FEW TIMES I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THE TWO SIDE BY SIDE TXWYS. IT LOOKS LIKE A RWY AND TXWY. THE RWY IS VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE BECAUSE OF THE TERRAIN AND VEGETATION. I AM NOT MAKING EXCUSES AND STILL CANNOT BELIEVE I DID SUCH A FOOLISH THING. I CALLED THE TWR AND THEY STATED IT WAS A COMMON ALMOST WEEKLY EVENT. THEY ALSO STATED IT WOULD NOT BE A PLT DEV AND WOULD BE HANDLED IN THE TWR; NOTED; LOGGED AND CONCLUDED. IN MY OPINION A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS. REIL LIGHTS SHOULD BE INSTALLED; THE ATIS SHOULD INFORM PLTS NOT TO LAND ON TXWY BRAVO -- THIS ATIS INFO IS BROADCAST AT ANOTHER AIRFIELD. THE TXWY SHOULD BE MARKED NO LANDING OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF INFORMING PLTS OF THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT. THE TWR KNOWS THERE IS A PROBLEM. THE FAA SHOULD WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ARPT TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE FIRST ARPT SURFACES HE SAW WERE TWO DARK; PAVED AREAS. HE DID NOT HAVE HIS ILS TUNED AND SO WAS NOT RELYING ON A BACKUP INFO SOURCE. THE RWY IS BEHIND A SMALL RISE IN THE GND WHICH TENDS TO HIDE THE RWY END AND SINCE THE TWO TXWY SURFACES ARE DARKER THAN THE RWY; THEY ARE MORE EASILY PICKED OUT. IN THIS CASE WHEN HE LOCKED ON TO TXWY A; HE UNCONSCIOUSLY STOPPED LOOKING AT OTHER VISUAL CUES. THE TWR CTLR STATED TO THE RPTR THAT SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR PLTS LAND ON THIS TXWY. THE TWR HAS REQUESTED ADDITIONAL MARKINGS ON BOTH THE TXWYS AND RWY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS.