Narrative:

Approached tlc with mex center at FL270. We were cleared to FL200. We leveled at FL200 and requested lower. Mex center switched us to mex terminal who told us to descend to 200. We stated that we were at 200 and requested lower again told to descend to 200. We stated that we were 6 DME from tlc at 200. We were cleared for a VOR approach. No runway stated and we commenced the approach to runway 33. We contacted the tower stating that we were over the VOR on the approach. The tower controller said 'call on final.' we turned inbound at 10 mi stated we had the airport and requested to continue visually. The tower said to call on short final at 5 DME tlc VOR we stated that we were on short final. The controller asked our position and I said we are abeam the aircraft that just took off runway 15. We were 'cleared to land.' no runway stated. At no time throughout the approach were we led to believe that 33 was not the correct runway. When cleared for an approach it is the approach of our choice. When we were 'cleared to land' we assumed that we were in sight and on the runway we thought was correct. No mention of runway 15 was made until we were on the ground. On roll out tower said cleared visual approach to land runway 15. I stated that we were already on the ground approaching taxiway bravo. The other aircraft was observed from start of his takeoff through departure. We never came closer than 1 mi and were 6 mi from runway 33 when he started his left turn out. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Called reporter specifically to ask if there was any mention of a runway number on the ATIS obtained. Without hesitation he said no. The former employee who had been fired was not a pilot. He had nothing more to add to the report. Supplemental information from acn 225137. For anyone who has flown in mexico, confusion is sometimes the normal mode of operations. Bottom line -- we let an environment of normal confusion lull us into complacency. We should have clarified the runway. Also, the complaint was filed on the ground by a person monitoring communications -- a person previously fired by air carrier. Supplemental information from acn 224656. As we rolled out on final at 10 mi we observed the light of an aircraft which we later learned was an light transport starting his takeoff roll. The light transport made a left turn out and came no closer than 1 mi from us when we were at 6 DME. I share the responsibility with terminal control and the tower for not specifying a runway in any of our communications.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARGO LGT LANDS ON WRONG RWY AGAINST TFC. ATC NEVER MENTIONED WHICH RWY TO EXPECT.

Narrative: APCHED TLC WITH MEX CTR AT FL270. WE WERE CLRED TO FL200. WE LEVELED AT FL200 AND REQUESTED LOWER. MEX CTR SWITCHED US TO MEX TERMINAL WHO TOLD US TO DSND TO 200. WE STATED THAT WE WERE AT 200 AND REQUESTED LOWER AGAIN TOLD TO DSND TO 200. WE STATED THAT WE WERE 6 DME FROM TLC AT 200. WE WERE CLRED FOR A VOR APCH. NO RWY STATED AND WE COMMENCED THE APCH TO RWY 33. WE CONTACTED THE TWR STATING THAT WE WERE OVER THE VOR ON THE APCH. THE TWR CTLR SAID 'CALL ON FINAL.' WE TURNED INBOUND AT 10 MI STATED WE HAD THE ARPT AND REQUESTED TO CONTINUE VISUALLY. THE TWR SAID TO CALL ON SHORT FINAL AT 5 DME TLC VOR WE STATED THAT WE WERE ON SHORT FINAL. THE CTLR ASKED OUR POS AND I SAID WE ARE ABEAM THE ACFT THAT JUST TOOK OFF RWY 15. WE WERE 'CLRED TO LAND.' NO RWY STATED. AT NO TIME THROUGHOUT THE APCH WERE WE LED TO BELIEVE THAT 33 WAS NOT THE CORRECT RWY. WHEN CLRED FOR AN APCH IT IS THE APCH OF OUR CHOICE. WHEN WE WERE 'CLRED TO LAND' WE ASSUMED THAT WE WERE IN SIGHT AND ON THE RWY WE THOUGHT WAS CORRECT. NO MENTION OF RWY 15 WAS MADE UNTIL WE WERE ON THE GND. ON ROLL OUT TWR SAID CLRED VISUAL APCH TO LAND RWY 15. I STATED THAT WE WERE ALREADY ON THE GND APCHING TAXIWAY BRAVO. THE OTHER ACFT WAS OBSERVED FROM START OF HIS TKOF THROUGH DEP. WE NEVER CAME CLOSER THAN 1 MI AND WERE 6 MI FROM RWY 33 WHEN HE STARTED HIS L TURN OUT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. CALLED RPTR SPECIFICALLY TO ASK IF THERE WAS ANY MENTION OF A RWY NUMBER ON THE ATIS OBTAINED. WITHOUT HESITATION HE SAID NO. THE FORMER EMPLOYEE WHO HAD BEEN FIRED WAS NOT A PLT. HE HAD NOTHING MORE TO ADD TO THE RPT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 225137. FOR ANYONE WHO HAS FLOWN IN MEXICO, CONFUSION IS SOMETIMES THE NORMAL MODE OF OPS. BOTTOM LINE -- WE LET AN ENVIRONMENT OF NORMAL CONFUSION LULL US INTO COMPLACENCY. WE SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE RWY. ALSO, THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON THE GND BY A PERSON MONITORING COMS -- A PERSON PREVIOUSLY FIRED BY ACR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 224656. AS WE ROLLED OUT ON FINAL AT 10 MI WE OBSERVED THE LIGHT OF AN ACFT WHICH WE LATER LEARNED WAS AN LTT STARTING HIS TKOF ROLL. THE LTT MADE A L TURN OUT AND CAME NO CLOSER THAN 1 MI FROM US WHEN WE WERE AT 6 DME. I SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY WITH TERMINAL CTL AND THE TWR FOR NOT SPECIFYING A RWY IN ANY OF OUR COMS.

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.