Narrative:

Cleared for a visual approach land to runway 17 at mco. We were vectored for a final to cross orl executive airport at or above 2500 ft with speed at our discretion. We were #1 on the approach. The radar vectors by approach control brought our aircraft over executive airport at a 45 degree base to line up over runway 17. We were well above the 2500 ft crossing restr. The crew had followed all procedures for a visual approach with an ILS backup to runway 17 as required in the company pilot operating manual and the flight operations procedure manual all ILS frequencys were tuned and idented for runway 17, and the most recent ATIS information was copied. The crew chose to request (and was granted) a deviation to the east of the runway 17 final extended line in order to accomplish a comfortable descent, and place the aircraft in a position from which to accomplish a safe and comfortable final approach and landing. The attention given to completing all checklist and positioning the aircraft in a stabilized approach confign distracted the crew from visually aligning themselves with the assigned runway. As a result, the flight was cleared to land on runway 17 at mco and the crew lined up and visually landed on runway 18L mco. The crew rushed itself and broke its coordination pattern in order to accomplish an early and close-in approach and landing. When we sensed ourselves as too rushed or too close or too high, we should have asked for the extended time to complete the approach landing and this error would have been avoided. Supplemental information from acn 268848: approaching 100 ft AGL, I noticed the runway markings 18L, not sure if during my time in the cockpit earlier we had been cleared for runway 18L. I did not say anything. Why did tower clear us to land on an extended base to final which coincided with the runway 18L final? Why didn't tower question our actions while on a 3-4 mi final to runway 18L?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR WDB LANDED ON THE WRONG RWY.

Narrative: CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH LAND TO RWY 17 AT MCO. WE WERE VECTORED FOR A FINAL TO CROSS ORL EXECUTIVE ARPT AT OR ABOVE 2500 FT WITH SPD AT OUR DISCRETION. WE WERE #1 ON THE APCH. THE RADAR VECTORS BY APCH CTL BROUGHT OUR ACFT OVER EXECUTIVE ARPT AT A 45 DEG BASE TO LINE UP OVER RWY 17. WE WERE WELL ABOVE THE 2500 FT XING RESTR. THE CREW HAD FOLLOWED ALL PROCS FOR A VISUAL APCH WITH AN ILS BACKUP TO RWY 17 AS REQUIRED IN THE COMPANY PLT OPERATING MANUAL AND THE FLT OPS PROC MANUAL ALL ILS FREQS WERE TUNED AND IDENTED FOR RWY 17, AND THE MOST RECENT ATIS INFO WAS COPIED. THE CREW CHOSE TO REQUEST (AND WAS GRANTED) A DEV TO THE E OF THE RWY 17 FINAL EXTENDED LINE IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH A COMFORTABLE DSCNT, AND PLACE THE ACFT IN A POS FROM WHICH TO ACCOMPLISH A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE FINAL APCH AND LNDG. THE ATTN GIVEN TO COMPLETING ALL CHKLIST AND POSITIONING THE ACFT IN A STABILIZED APCH CONFIGN DISTRACTED THE CREW FROM VISUALLY ALIGNING THEMSELVES WITH THE ASSIGNED RWY. AS A RESULT, THE FLT WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 17 AT MCO AND THE CREW LINED UP AND VISUALLY LANDED ON RWY 18L MCO. THE CREW RUSHED ITSELF AND BROKE ITS COORD PATTERN IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH AN EARLY AND CLOSE-IN APCH AND LNDG. WHEN WE SENSED OURSELVES AS TOO RUSHED OR TOO CLOSE OR TOO HIGH, WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THE EXTENDED TIME TO COMPLETE THE APCH LNDG AND THIS ERROR WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 268848: APCHING 100 FT AGL, I NOTICED THE RWY MARKINGS 18L, NOT SURE IF DURING MY TIME IN THE COCKPIT EARLIER WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR RWY 18L. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING. WHY DID TWR CLR US TO LAND ON AN EXTENDED BASE TO FINAL WHICH COINCIDED WITH THE RWY 18L FINAL? WHY DIDN'T TWR QUESTION OUR ACTIONS WHILE ON A 3-4 MI FINAL TO RWY 18L?

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.