Flight crew of air carrier medium large transport arriving msp rosts clearance for runway 29R which ...

Attributes
ACN	153038
Time
Date	199008
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : msp
State Reference	MN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zdv
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 225 flight time total : 4500 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	153038
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 14000
ASRS Report	153513
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We were en route from bdl to msp and were told to expect runway 29L at msp for landing. The captain was flying the plane and told me to tell approach control that we could take runway 29R if it would help them out. Also because runway 29R was closer to our gate, we were thinking of fuel conservation. This all started about 3 mi or so on final approach. The captain asked me to check the 'quick reference' landing chart to see if we were level to land on runway 29R, as the landing distance was only 5100' available due to construction. We were flying an medium large transport series airplane. Upon checking the quick reference landing chart, and the msp landing chart page, it showed us to be legal for the landing. I also checked the list of NOTAMS we had in our company paperwork and it did not mention runway 29R not legal for landing. After landing, the captain said he didn't feel right about the landing and he too checked the msp landing data page in our weight book. There was a page in it that showed runway 29R legal for landing in 'phase I' contruction, and then in fine print, it showed 'phase ii' not authority/authorized and it was in phase ii of construction. Our next leg was msp-dlh and in that set of paperwork the NOTAMS for msp did state runway 29R landing not authority/authorized. However, the previously issued NOTAMS we had did not. Both sets of NOTAMS we have retained for reference regarding this incident. The quick reference landing chart showed us legal for our landing weight of 86000 pounds and the temperature and runway length available, but the note on the construction supplement page did not. Supplemental information from acn 153513. After arriving at the gate (and landing on runway 29R) we checked our weight book further and saw in very fine print !! Runway 29R takeoff only. On the next leg the company NOTAMS did list runway 29R takeoff only (also saved). From the time I requested runway 29R until we landed I had a nagging hunch about the legality. The old adage 'if it doesn't feel right don't do it' certainly applies. Chagrined.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF ACR MLG ARRIVING MSP ROSTS CLRNC FOR RWY 29R WHICH WAS LENGTH LIMITED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. FLT LANDED RWY 29R BASED ON LNDG WT AND WIND CONDITIONS, BUT CREW MISSED THE FINE PRINT IN COMPANY PUBLICATION THAT RESTRICTED USE OF RWY 29R FOR TKOF ONLY.

Narrative: WE WERE ENRTE FROM BDL TO MSP AND WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 29L AT MSP FOR LNDG. THE CAPT WAS FLYING THE PLANE AND TOLD ME TO TELL APCH CTL THAT WE COULD TAKE RWY 29R IF IT WOULD HELP THEM OUT. ALSO BECAUSE RWY 29R WAS CLOSER TO OUR GATE, WE WERE THINKING OF FUEL CONSERVATION. THIS ALL STARTED ABOUT 3 MI OR SO ON FINAL APCH. THE CAPT ASKED ME TO CHK THE 'QUICK REFERENCE' LNDG CHART TO SEE IF WE WERE LEVEL TO LAND ON RWY 29R, AS THE LNDG DISTANCE WAS ONLY 5100' AVAILABLE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. WE WERE FLYING AN MLG SERIES AIRPLANE. UPON CHKING THE QUICK REFERENCE LNDG CHART, AND THE MSP LNDG CHART PAGE, IT SHOWED US TO BE LEGAL FOR THE LNDG. I ALSO CHKED THE LIST OF NOTAMS WE HAD IN OUR COMPANY PAPERWORK AND IT DID NOT MENTION RWY 29R NOT LEGAL FOR LNDG. AFTER LNDG, THE CAPT SAID HE DIDN'T FEEL RIGHT ABOUT THE LNDG AND HE TOO CHKED THE MSP LNDG DATA PAGE IN OUR WT BOOK. THERE WAS A PAGE IN IT THAT SHOWED RWY 29R LEGAL FOR LNDG IN 'PHASE I' CONTRUCTION, AND THEN IN FINE PRINT, IT SHOWED 'PHASE II' NOT AUTH AND IT WAS IN PHASE II OF CONSTRUCTION. OUR NEXT LEG WAS MSP-DLH AND IN THAT SET OF PAPERWORK THE NOTAMS FOR MSP DID STATE RWY 29R LNDG NOT AUTH. HOWEVER, THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED NOTAMS WE HAD DID NOT. BOTH SETS OF NOTAMS WE HAVE RETAINED FOR REFERENCE REGARDING THIS INCIDENT. THE QUICK REFERENCE LNDG CHART SHOWED US LEGAL FOR OUR LNDG WT OF 86000 LBS AND THE TEMP AND RWY LENGTH AVAILABLE, BUT THE NOTE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLEMENT PAGE DID NOT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 153513. AFTER ARRIVING AT THE GATE (AND LNDG ON RWY 29R) WE CHKED OUR WT BOOK FURTHER AND SAW IN VERY FINE PRINT !! RWY 29R TKOF ONLY. ON THE NEXT LEG THE COMPANY NOTAMS DID LIST RWY 29R TKOF ONLY (ALSO SAVED). FROM THE TIME I REQUESTED RWY 29R UNTIL WE LANDED I HAD A NAGGING HUNCH ABOUT THE LEGALITY. THE OLD ADAGE 'IF IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT DON'T DO IT' CERTAINLY APPLIES. CHAGRINED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.