Narrative:

The flight departed ewr (newark, nj) and flew to washington dulles (iad) in VFR conditions with no problems until the approach and landing phases of flight. The aircraft was east of runway 1R at iad receiving vectors in a non standard traffic pattern to eventually cross the final approach course for runway 1R and land on runway 1L. Runway 1R is under construction on the last (north) 6450 ft and subsequently that portion of runway is closed. On this particular afternoon however the entire runway was closed. There were no MEA of equipment on the useable portion of the runway and no markings, such as an 'X,' to indicate that the runway was indeed closed. We then proceeded inbound, with no query from ATC, and lined up on final and landed on runway 1R. After landing the tower asked if we were cleared to land on runway 1R and we then realized our error in not landing runway 1L. Although it is the responsibility of the flight crew to ensure the correct runway I feel that there were some contributing factors to indicate that everything was done correctly as perceived by the flight crew. Contributing factors include the nonstandard traffic pattern crossing a runway normally in use even though portions of that runway may be closed, no markings to indicate a closure of the normally useable portion of runway, the error in judgement of the crew in landing on the closed runway, and no query from ATC while on final for a closed runway. All of the above elements, in my opinion, contributed to the pilot's actions in the landing on a closed runway unintentionally because there was not an indication that something was being done incorrectly. 2 of the above elements could have led to a normal approach and landing on the correct runway. They would be to place a removable 'X' on any runway that is temporarily closed and to use standard traffic patterns when vectoring aircraft to a particular airport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LNDG ON WRONG RWY.

Narrative: THE FLT DEPARTED EWR (NEWARK, NJ) AND FLEW TO WASHINGTON DULLES (IAD) IN VFR CONDITIONS WITH NO PROBS UNTIL THE APCH AND LNDG PHASES OF FLT. THE ACFT WAS E OF RWY 1R AT IAD RECEIVING VECTORS IN A NON STANDARD TFC PATTERN TO EVENTUALLY CROSS THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR RWY 1R AND LAND ON RWY 1L. RWY 1R IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAST (N) 6450 FT AND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT PORTION OF RWY IS CLOSED. ON THIS PARTICULAR AFTERNOON HOWEVER THE ENTIRE RWY WAS CLOSED. THERE WERE NO MEA OF EQUIP ON THE USEABLE PORTION OF THE RWY AND NO MARKINGS, SUCH AS AN 'X,' TO INDICATE THAT THE RWY WAS INDEED CLOSED. WE THEN PROCEEDED INBOUND, WITH NO QUERY FROM ATC, AND LINED UP ON FINAL AND LANDED ON RWY 1R. AFTER LNDG THE TWR ASKED IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 1R AND WE THEN REALIZED OUR ERROR IN NOT LNDG RWY 1L. ALTHOUGH IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FLC TO ENSURE THE CORRECT RWY I FEEL THAT THERE WERE SOME CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO INDICATE THAT EVERYTHING WAS DONE CORRECTLY AS PERCEIVED BY THE FLC. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDE THE NONSTANDARD TFC PATTERN XING A RWY NORMALLY IN USE EVEN THOUGH PORTIONS OF THAT RWY MAY BE CLOSED, NO MARKINGS TO INDICATE A CLOSURE OF THE NORMALLY USEABLE PORTION OF RWY, THE ERROR IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CREW IN LNDG ON THE CLOSED RWY, AND NO QUERY FROM ATC WHILE ON FINAL FOR A CLOSED RWY. ALL OF THE ABOVE ELEMENTS, IN MY OPINION, CONTRIBUTED TO THE PLT'S ACTIONS IN THE LNDG ON A CLOSED RWY UNINTENTIONALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT AN INDICATION THAT SOMETHING WAS BEING DONE INCORRECTLY. 2 OF THE ABOVE ELEMENTS COULD HAVE LED TO A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG ON THE CORRECT RWY. THEY WOULD BE TO PLACE A REMOVABLE 'X' ON ANY RWY THAT IS TEMPORARILY CLOSED AND TO USE STANDARD TFC PATTERNS WHEN VECTORING ACFT TO A PARTICULAR ARPT.

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.