Landing in IMC due to blowing dust in a high cross winds; the flight crew of a high tech corporate jet lined up with 26R versus 26L as cleared. The combination of poor visibility; high winds; disparate runway alignment versus approach track and the resulting large apparent crab angles contributed to the mis-identification.
Synopsis
Landing in IMC due to blowing dust in a high cross winds; the flight crew of a high tech corporate jet lined up with 26R versus 26L as cleared. The combination of poor visibility; high winds; disparate runway alignment versus approach track and the resulting large apparent crab angles contributed to the mis-identification.
Narrative
The Captain and I did all the necessary preflight planning and noted before our departure that the arrival into ELP would have gusty winds. Upon arrival we accepted the advertised approach in use (VOR Runway 26L). The weather upon arrival was reported on the ATIS as winds of 260 degrees at 29 gusting to 47; and 2 miles visibility in blowing dust/sand with low level windshear advisories. While briefing the arrival we discussed the possibility of the straight-in RNAV GPS approach to Runway 26L; however elected not to attempt that approach as the visibility minimums were higher than the VOR approach (3/4 versus 1 1/4 miles).As we neared the airport I called the runway in sight; and consequently due to cross winds aloft we were lined up perfectly with that runway. Moments later the Tower Controller stated that we looked like we were lined up with 26R. We immediately asked if we were cleared to land on this runway because 26L was not in sight. The Tower Controller issued the landing clearance and I verified that we had enough runway to make a safe landing.While taxiing in there was a discussion between an air carrier jet that arrived in front of us and the Tower about the 'gotcha' aspect of this approach. The Tower indicated that he recently had 3 or 4 other aircraft lined up on 26R. The Captain and I fully debriefed the approach and agreed that with the technology of our aircraft a mistake like this should not happen. Having said that; the design of the approach causes many of flight crews to make the same mistake regardless of the technology in the cockpit. For us; our situational awareness was degraded because of an unfamiliar airport in poor weather conditions without a complete understanding of the approach we accepted.
Second reporter narrative
Approaching minimums; Copilot called runway in sight and I transitioned to a visual approach. Upon disconnecting the autopilot; I immediately noticed that we were drifting left of the runway and adjusted to get back to the centerline. At this point; Tower called and said it looked like we were lining up with Runway 26R. Both of us looked for the other runway but could not see it. Because we were quite close to the runway; I asked the Copilot how long 26R was and had him ask for clearance to land on it. Tower quickly issued a new landing clearance and we landed without issue.One thing I think noteworthy is the design of the VOR approach to 26L. It almost sets you up for this type of error because it angles across the leading edge of 26R. We later heard the Tower tell another aircraft that 3 or 4 others had lined up for the wrong runway; just like we did.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.