Narrative:

On approach to pie I was told to enter a right downwind to 35R (the runway tampa approach had told me to expect). When about a mi north of field tower told me to change runways to 27. I acknowledged and, believing I had identified runway 27, made a right base entry after having been cleared to land. There were no further xmissions from the tower to my aircraft until after landing. While on base leg I attempted to correlate the alignment of the runway I believed to be runway 27 with the aircraft directional gyro. This looked to be about the correct alignment. While on short final I discovered that this was runway 22 and not 27. There being no other aircraft nearby and with my altitude and position on the airport, I decided to go around and land. Tower called to advise I had landed on 22. Contributing factors: lack of familiarity with airport. Prior to this I didn't really know there was a 22 runway. Approach end of 22 much more prominent from air than 27. End of 22 is quite distinct from the other runways, while 27 begins much nearer the center of the airport. Additionally, from my vantage point runway numbers weren't visible. Corrective actions: without a doubt the PIC must bear the responsibility to land on the proper runway but perhaps where runway alignment is within 50-60 degree (ie between 22 and 27 is only about 50 degree difference). Some visual clue, bigger numbers or a different paint scheme at the approach end could be instituted. Human performance factors: fatigue. Inability to visually observe runway numbers from point where runway to be used was selected.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RWY CHANGED ONE MILE OUT ON APCH. LINED UP WITH 22 INSTEAD OF 27. LANDED WRONG RWY.

Narrative: ON APCH TO PIE I WAS TOLD TO ENTER A RIGHT DOWNWIND TO 35R (THE RWY TAMPA APCH HAD TOLD ME TO EXPECT). WHEN ABOUT A MI N OF FIELD TWR TOLD ME TO CHANGE RWYS TO 27. I ACKNOWLEDGED AND, BELIEVING I HAD IDENTIFIED RWY 27, MADE A RIGHT BASE ENTRY AFTER HAVING BEEN CLRED TO LAND. THERE WERE NO FURTHER XMISSIONS FROM THE TWR TO MY ACFT UNTIL AFTER LNDG. WHILE ON BASE LEG I ATTEMPTED TO CORRELATE THE ALIGNMENT OF THE RWY I BELIEVED TO BE RWY 27 WITH THE ACFT DIRECTIONAL GYRO. THIS LOOKED TO BE ABOUT THE CORRECT ALIGNMENT. WHILE ON SHORT FINAL I DISCOVERED THAT THIS WAS RWY 22 AND NOT 27. THERE BEING NO OTHER ACFT NEARBY AND WITH MY ALT AND POSITION ON THE ARPT, I DECIDED TO GO AROUND AND LAND. TWR CALLED TO ADVISE I HAD LANDED ON 22. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH ARPT. PRIOR TO THIS I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THERE WAS A 22 RWY. APCH END OF 22 MUCH MORE PROMINENT FROM AIR THAN 27. END OF 22 IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE OTHER RWYS, WHILE 27 BEGINS MUCH NEARER THE CENTER OF THE ARPT. ADDITIONALLY, FROM MY VANTAGE POINT RWY NUMBERS WEREN'T VISIBLE. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: WITHOUT A DOUBT THE PIC MUST BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY TO LAND ON THE PROPER RWY BUT PERHAPS WHERE RWY ALIGNMENT IS WITHIN 50-60 DEG (IE BETWEEN 22 AND 27 IS ONLY ABOUT 50 DEG DIFFERENCE). SOME VISUAL CLUE, BIGGER NUMBERS OR A DIFFERENT PAINT SCHEME AT THE APCH END COULD BE INSTITUTED. HUMAN PERFORMANCE FACTORS: FATIGUE. INABILITY TO VISUALLY OBSERVE RWY NUMBERS FROM POINT WHERE RWY TO BE USED WAS SELECTED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.