Widebody transport cleared for approach and landing on runway 5R lands on 5L instead.

Attributes
ACN	184654
Time
Date	199107
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mex
State Reference	FO
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 500
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mex
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 4000
ASRS Report	184654
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

WX was marginal. We were cleared for 5R. They cut us in tight and high from the left side. Automatic capture of course didn't seem to be occurring properly so the autoplt was disengaged. While descending configuring, and capturing the ILS to 5R we broke out and saw the runway. We ended up landing on 5L instead. The basic problem from our standpoint was a failure to stay on the instruments after we saw the runway. One reason for this was because when we broke out we were high on final and misaligned so it took a few corrections to get back on what we thought was the right course. We were high because 5L is displaced back from 5R. It took most of our attention to make a safe landing. I am experienced in the airplane and quite familiar with mexico city. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. When the autoplt was disengaged, they went to raw data. They never did catch the GS. If they had, they probably would have gotten a GPWS warning. They landed long on runway 5L. ATC had them on radar during the full approach and, realizing what they were about to do, allowed them to continue for the left runway rather than cause greater distraction correcting them to the right one. There was nothing wrong with any of the navaids.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB CLRED FOR APCH AND LNDG ON RWY 5R LANDS ON 5L INSTEAD.

Narrative: WX WAS MARGINAL. WE WERE CLRED FOR 5R. THEY CUT US IN TIGHT AND HIGH FROM THE L SIDE. AUTOMATIC CAPTURE OF COURSE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE OCCURRING PROPERLY SO THE AUTOPLT WAS DISENGAGED. WHILE DSNDING CONFIGURING, AND CAPTURING THE ILS TO 5R WE BROKE OUT AND SAW THE RWY. WE ENDED UP LNDG ON 5L INSTEAD. THE BASIC PROBLEM FROM OUR STANDPOINT WAS A FAILURE TO STAY ON THE INSTS AFTER WE SAW THE RWY. ONE REASON FOR THIS WAS BECAUSE WHEN WE BROKE OUT WE WERE HIGH ON FINAL AND MISALIGNED SO IT TOOK A FEW CORRECTIONS TO GET BACK ON WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE R COURSE. WE WERE HIGH BECAUSE 5L IS DISPLACED BACK FROM 5R. IT TOOK MOST OF OUR ATTN TO MAKE A SAFE LNDG. I AM EXPERIENCED IN THE AIRPLANE AND QUITE FAMILIAR WITH MEXICO CITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. WHEN THE AUTOPLT WAS DISENGAGED, THEY WENT TO RAW DATA. THEY NEVER DID CATCH THE GS. IF THEY HAD, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A GPWS WARNING. THEY LANDED LONG ON RWY 5L. ATC HAD THEM ON RADAR DURING THE FULL APCH AND, REALIZING WHAT THEY WERE ABOUT TO DO, ALLOWED THEM TO CONTINUE FOR THE L RWY RATHER THAN CAUSE GREATER DISTR CORRECTING THEM TO THE R ONE. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY OF THE NAVAIDS.

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.