Narrative:

I was the PF inbound to kmli and the captain as the PNF picked up the ATIS for kmli and relayed the information to me. There was no mention of runway 31 being unusable. We saw the airport beacon and as we continued towards kmli, we found ourselves lined up for runway 31. We requested a straight-in visual to runway 31 from the quad cities approach controller. We received clearance for the visual approach to runway 31 and we were instructed to contact the tower. The captain contacted quad cities tower and we were given clearance to land on runway 31. After we landed, we were asked to phone the tower. The captain phoned the tower and the tower controller said we were not approved for landing on runway 31 and he referenced a new NOTAM for kmli. In our WX package there was a new NOTAM that read 'mli 31 closed landing air carrier ps atx ps aircraft with approach speed over 120 KTS.' having read this prior to landing, we appeared legal since we were given clearance to landon runway 31 and our approach speed is not over 120 KTS. I believe this possible infraction could have been prevented by the flight crew's better understanding of what the poorly written NOTAM intended to say. We interpreted the NOTAM as runway 31 being closed to air carrier/atx aircraft with an approach speed over 120 KTS, not as being closed to all air carrier and atx aircraft. A mention of the runway not being usable in the ATIS would have also prevented this infraction. As a last resource, notification from the approach or from tower saying the runway is not usable to air carrier aircraft, but instead they gave us clearance for both the visual approach to runway 31 and landing clearance to runway 31. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he called his dispatch office for clarification of the NOTAM. Dispatch indicated that the ps equals a plus sign which the equipment cannot make. In speaking with controller, he indicated it was his interpretation that the NOTAM meant no air carrier aircraft could use the runway. If this was the case, reporter wonders why he would be cleared to land on that runway??? Reporter was advised of the hot line number to further follow up on the problem. Supplemental information from acn 292915: we asked for a visual straight-in to runway 31. This was approved by approach control. Checking in with tower, a landing clearance was obtained for runway 31. Any one of several things would have prevented this: the flight crew's better understanding of a poorly written new NOTAM, a mention of the change on the ATIS or, as a last line of defense, notification from approach or tower control, the approving agency. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter was advised that 'ps' is a legal FAA abbreviation for 'plus,' therefore, his air carrier aircraft with an approach speed less than 120 KTS was included in this proscription.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER ACFT LANDS ON RWY NOTAMED CLOSED WITH STIPULATIONS.

Narrative: I WAS THE PF INBOUND TO KMLI AND THE CAPT AS THE PNF PICKED UP THE ATIS FOR KMLI AND RELAYED THE INFO TO ME. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF RWY 31 BEING UNUSABLE. WE SAW THE ARPT BEACON AND AS WE CONTINUED TOWARDS KMLI, WE FOUND OURSELVES LINED UP FOR RWY 31. WE REQUESTED A STRAIGHT-IN VISUAL TO RWY 31 FROM THE QUAD CITIES APCH CTLR. WE RECEIVED CLRNC FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 31 AND WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT THE TWR. THE CAPT CONTACTED QUAD CITIES TWR AND WE WERE GIVEN CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 31. AFTER WE LANDED, WE WERE ASKED TO PHONE THE TWR. THE CAPT PHONED THE TWR AND THE TWR CTLR SAID WE WERE NOT APPROVED FOR LNDG ON RWY 31 AND HE REFED A NEW NOTAM FOR KMLI. IN OUR WX PACKAGE THERE WAS A NEW NOTAM THAT READ 'MLI 31 CLOSED LNDG ACR PS ATX PS ACFT WITH APCH SPD OVER 120 KTS.' HAVING READ THIS PRIOR TO LNDG, WE APPEARED LEGAL SINCE WE WERE GIVEN CLRNC TO LANDON RWY 31 AND OUR APCH SPD IS NOT OVER 120 KTS. I BELIEVE THIS POSSIBLE INFRACTION COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE FLC'S BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE POORLY WRITTEN NOTAM INTENDED TO SAY. WE INTERPRETED THE NOTAM AS RWY 31 BEING CLOSED TO ACR/ATX ACFT WITH AN APCH SPD OVER 120 KTS, NOT AS BEING CLOSED TO ALL ACR AND ATX ACFT. A MENTION OF THE RWY NOT BEING USABLE IN THE ATIS WOULD HAVE ALSO PREVENTED THIS INFRACTION. AS A LAST RESOURCE, NOTIFICATION FROM THE APCH OR FROM TWR SAYING THE RWY IS NOT USABLE TO ACR ACFT, BUT INSTEAD THEY GAVE US CLRNC FOR BOTH THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 31 AND LNDG CLRNC TO RWY 31. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE CALLED HIS DISPATCH OFFICE FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE NOTAM. DISPATCH INDICATED THAT THE PS EQUALS A PLUS SIGN WHICH THE EQUIP CANNOT MAKE. IN SPEAKING WITH CTLR, HE INDICATED IT WAS HIS INTERPRETATION THAT THE NOTAM MEANT NO ACR ACFT COULD USE THE RWY. IF THIS WAS THE CASE, RPTR WONDERS WHY HE WOULD BE CLRED TO LAND ON THAT RWY??? RPTR WAS ADVISED OF THE HOT LINE NUMBER TO FURTHER FOLLOW UP ON THE PROB. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 292915: WE ASKED FOR A VISUAL STRAIGHT-IN TO RWY 31. THIS WAS APPROVED BY APCH CTL. CHKING IN WITH TWR, A LNDG CLRNC WAS OBTAINED FOR RWY 31. ANY ONE OF SEVERAL THINGS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS: THE FLC'S BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF A POORLY WRITTEN NEW NOTAM, A MENTION OF THE CHANGE ON THE ATIS OR, AS A LAST LINE OF DEFENSE, NOTIFICATION FROM APCH OR TWR CTL, THE APPROVING AGENCY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR WAS ADVISED THAT 'PS' IS A LEGAL FAA ABBREVIATION FOR 'PLUS,' THEREFORE, HIS ACR ACFT WITH AN APCH SPD LESS THAN 120 KTS WAS INCLUDED IN THIS PROSCRIPTION.

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.