Air carrier medium large transport wrong runway approach landing.

Attributes
ACN	190202
Time
Date	199109
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cak
State Reference	OH
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	landing other other
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 1500
ASRS Report	190202
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	incursion : runway non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Radar vectors to visual approach from southwest. Reported field in sight. Cleared for visual to runway 01. Had ILS set up on navaids. ILS unreliable. Indications were wrong and varied from side to side. Distraction by ILS indications, visual clues were neglected. Tried to reconcile situation with HSI orientation. Led to landing on runway 32. Contributing factors: sunlight haze glare also controller preoccupied with advisories to other VFR aircraft gave visual clearance late in the game. No excuse, but it led to same result. Captain unaware of situation until on short final when another aircraft asked tower if we were now going to land on 32. Tower came back with 'cleared to land on runway 32.' I believe tower was also talking to a ground maintenance vehicle. We adhered to company procedures: field in sight. Runways in sight. Back up navaids. But, still managed to line up with the wrong runway. Suggestions: be more familiar with airport layout (I am new to this area) before accepting visual approachs. Emphasis crew coordination to older, more established airlines, commuter regionals. Attempt to minimize controllers talk. Some seem to be thinking that more talk equals better safety. It really becomes a distraction at some airports to have VFR advisories consume 90 percent of the air time without breaks.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG WRONG RWY APCH LNDG.

Narrative: RADAR VECTORS TO VISUAL APCH FROM SW. RPTED FIELD IN SIGHT. CLRED FOR VISUAL TO RWY 01. HAD ILS SET UP ON NAVAIDS. ILS UNRELIABLE. INDICATIONS WERE WRONG AND VARIED FROM SIDE TO SIDE. DISTR BY ILS INDICATIONS, VISUAL CLUES WERE NEGLECTED. TRIED TO RECONCILE SITUATION WITH HSI ORIENTATION. LED TO LNDG ON RWY 32. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: SUNLIGHT HAZE GLARE ALSO CTLR PREOCCUPIED WITH ADVISORIES TO OTHER VFR ACFT GAVE VISUAL CLRNC LATE IN THE GAME. NO EXCUSE, BUT IT LED TO SAME RESULT. CAPT UNAWARE OF SITUATION UNTIL ON SHORT FINAL WHEN ANOTHER ACFT ASKED TWR IF WE WERE NOW GOING TO LAND ON 32. TWR CAME BACK WITH 'CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 32.' I BELIEVE TWR WAS ALSO TALKING TO A GND MAINT VEHICLE. WE ADHERED TO COMPANY PROCS: FIELD IN SIGHT. RWYS IN SIGHT. BACK UP NAVAIDS. BUT, STILL MANAGED TO LINE UP WITH THE WRONG RWY. SUGGESTIONS: BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH ARPT LAYOUT (I AM NEW TO THIS AREA) BEFORE ACCEPTING VISUAL APCHS. EMPHASIS CREW COORD TO OLDER, MORE ESTABLISHED AIRLINES, COMMUTER REGIONALS. ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE CTLRS TALK. SOME SEEM TO BE THINKING THAT MORE TALK EQUALS BETTER SAFETY. IT REALLY BECOMES A DISTR AT SOME ARPTS TO HAVE VFR ADVISORIES CONSUME 90 PERCENT OF THE AIR TIME WITHOUT BREAKS.

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.