Narrative:

Aircraft approached the airport from the northeast on a heading of 240, was handed off to tower and reported field in sight from approximately 5 mi out, while descending through 2000' MSL. Aircraft was cleared to land on runway 21 and acknowledged this clearance. I experienced difficulty locating the runway since the heading did not have us lined up exactly with it. I was able to pick out what appeared to be a runway from its orientation relative to my flight path and began to line up with it for landing. Since the combination of the angle of the sun and the haze cast a glare over the entire airport surface, I was able to discern if I was lined up with the runway or not, so I confessed to the controller that I was unable to pick out the runway and asked him if it looked like I was lined up with runway 21. His response was 'it appears that you are lined up with runway 21'. No further transmission was received or acknowledged as I continued what I believed to be final approach to runway 21. The absence of further communication from the controller, along with the magnetic compass and the directional gyro indicating this I was approximately lined up with a 210 heading, supported this being the appropriate runway. At approximately 100-300' AGL, it became evident that this was, in fact, not a runway. However, airspeed, unknown locations of additional aircraft and altitude indicated that a go around was the less prudent alternative to landing. Therefore a successful short-field landing was executed. The causal factors for this, in my opinion, were as follows: a combination of the limited visibility caused by a combination of the angle of the sun, approximately 20-30 degree to the right of the flight path and the presence of low level haze caused serious visibility limitations and made it extremely difficult for one unfamiliar with the field to accurately locate the runway. The fact that the taxiway lined up approximately parallel to runway 21 is an additional contributory factor. A third contributing factor was the failure of the tower controller to communicate any change in runway alignment during the last approximately 2-4 mi of final approach. This reinforced pilot's interpretation of runway alignment implied by the earlier communication that it appeared the aircraft was lined up with the appropriate runway. For prevention of recurrence, I would suggest limiting the use of runway 21 in late afternoon traffic, especially when the pilot is approaching from the northeast. The limited visibility caused by the low angle of the sun and haze, when present, indicates this to be a poor choice. It would perhaps be wise to incorporate a question to see if the pilot is familiar with the airport. Lastly, I believe this situation could have been completely avoided had the controller working tower been more attentive to my flight path since I had confessed that I could not locate the runway. The absence of any further communication reinforced that I was approaching the correct runway. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter said he landed on taxiway bravo having realized shortly before touchdown that he was not lined up on a runway. He made a conscious decision not to go around because of unfamiliarity with the airport and not having the traffic picture in mind. After touchdown he could see a widebody transport air carrier in position on 18L directly ahead thus confirming his impression that he was in the wrong place. He seemed unaware that large express mail operation is at mem and the buildings should have been under his left wing on final to 21. He said visibility was very difficult due sun position and ground haze.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT, UNFAMILIAR WITH ARPT, LANDS ON TXWY.

Narrative: ACFT APCHED THE ARPT FROM THE NE ON A HDG OF 240, WAS HANDED OFF TO TWR AND REPORTED FIELD IN SIGHT FROM APPROX 5 MI OUT, WHILE DESCENDING THROUGH 2000' MSL. ACFT WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 21 AND ACKNOWLEDGED THIS CLRNC. I EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTY LOCATING THE RWY SINCE THE HDG DID NOT HAVE US LINED UP EXACTLY WITH IT. I WAS ABLE TO PICK OUT WHAT APPEARED TO BE A RWY FROM ITS ORIENTATION RELATIVE TO MY FLT PATH AND BEGAN TO LINE UP WITH IT FOR LNDG. SINCE THE COMBINATION OF THE ANGLE OF THE SUN AND THE HAZE CAST A GLARE OVER THE ENTIRE ARPT SURFACE, I WAS ABLE TO DISCERN IF I WAS LINED UP WITH THE RWY OR NOT, SO I CONFESSED TO THE CTLR THAT I WAS UNABLE TO PICK OUT THE RWY AND ASKED HIM IF IT LOOKED LIKE I WAS LINED UP WITH RWY 21. HIS RESPONSE WAS 'IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE LINED UP WITH RWY 21'. NO FURTHER XMISSION WAS RECEIVED OR ACKNOWLEDGED AS I CONTINUED WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE FINAL APCH TO RWY 21. THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER COM FROM THE CTLR, ALONG WITH THE MAGNETIC COMPASS AND THE DIRECTIONAL GYRO INDICATING THIS I WAS APPROX LINED UP WITH A 210 HDG, SUPPORTED THIS BEING THE APPROPRIATE RWY. AT APPROX 100-300' AGL, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, NOT A RWY. HOWEVER, AIRSPEED, UNKNOWN LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL ACFT AND ALT INDICATED THAT A GO AROUND WAS THE LESS PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE TO LNDG. THEREFORE A SUCCESSFUL SHORT-FIELD LNDG WAS EXECUTED. THE CAUSAL FACTORS FOR THIS, IN MY OPINION, WERE AS FOLLOWS: A COMBINATION OF THE LIMITED VISIBILITY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF THE ANGLE OF THE SUN, APPROX 20-30 DEG TO THE RIGHT OF THE FLT PATH AND THE PRESENCE OF LOW LEVEL HAZE CAUSED SERIOUS VISIBILITY LIMITATIONS AND MADE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR ONE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE FIELD TO ACCURATELY LOCATE THE RWY. THE FACT THAT THE TXWY LINED UP APPROX PARALLEL TO RWY 21 IS AN ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR. A THIRD CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THE FAILURE OF THE TWR CTLR TO COMMUNICATE ANY CHANGE IN RWY ALIGNMENT DURING THE LAST APPROX 2-4 MI OF FINAL APCH. THIS REINFORCED PLT'S INTERPRETATION OF RWY ALIGNMENT IMPLIED BY THE EARLIER COM THAT IT APPEARED THE ACFT WAS LINED UP WITH THE APPROPRIATE RWY. FOR PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE, I WOULD SUGGEST LIMITING THE USE OF RWY 21 IN LATE AFTERNOON TFC, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PLT IS APCHING FROM THE NE. THE LIMITED VISIBILITY CAUSED BY THE LOW ANGLE OF THE SUN AND HAZE, WHEN PRESENT, INDICATES THIS TO BE A POOR CHOICE. IT WOULD PERHAPS BE WISE TO INCORPORATE A QUESTION TO SEE IF THE PLT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT. LASTLY, I BELIEVE THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY AVOIDED HAD THE CTLR WORKING TWR BEEN MORE ATTENTIVE TO MY FLT PATH SINCE I HAD CONFESSED THAT I COULD NOT LOCATE THE RWY. THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER COM REINFORCED THAT I WAS APCHING THE CORRECT RWY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER SAID HE LANDED ON TXWY BRAVO HAVING REALIZED SHORTLY BEFORE TOUCHDOWN THAT HE WAS NOT LINED UP ON A RWY. HE MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO GO AROUND BECAUSE OF UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE ARPT AND NOT HAVING THE TFC PICTURE IN MIND. AFTER TOUCHDOWN HE COULD SEE A WDB ACR IN POSITION ON 18L DIRECTLY AHEAD THUS CONFIRMING HIS IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE. HE SEEMED UNAWARE THAT LARGE EXPRESS MAIL OPERATION IS AT MEM AND THE BUILDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER HIS LEFT WING ON FINAL TO 21. HE SAID VISIBILITY WAS VERY DIFFICULT DUE SUN POSITION AND GND HAZE.

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.