Narrative:

We were cleared the 'mateo runway 5R' arrival. Upon intercepting the runway 5R localizer and calling tower, we were not cleared to land on runway 5R. After our company SOP 1000 ft call, I replied 'runway 5R insight, not cleared to land.' at approximately 500 ft we understood tower, and captain acknowledged via radio, to clear us to land on runway 5L. I turned to intercept for a visual runway 5L landing. Around 300 ft I said 'runway is clear,' captain acknowledged. As we were slowed to taxi speed on runway 5L, we were advised by tower we were cleared to land on runway 5R, not runway 5L. I recall saying an apology, but we had understood clearance was for runway 5L. This could have been avoided if tower or ourselves would have verified twice the correct runway. I believe a simple affirmative or negative from the tower once the captain said 'cleared to land on runway 5L' would have changed the situation. We were told later by mex airport auths that runway 5L was closed. There was nothing in the NOTAMS or on ATIS to advise this crew of that. There also were no vehicles or workers on runway 5L. Supplemental information from acn 316314: at no time after receiving the landing clearance was there any doubt that we were cleared to land on runway 5L. The runway appeared to be clear and no vehicles or personnel were observed on the runway. Callback conversation with reporter acn 316314 revealed the following information: the reporter flies the A320. After talking to the ATCT personnel on the telephone, who assured him that there was no problem, the reporter was intercepted and detained by airport auths. They took copies of his certificates and a statement. His air carrier's station personnel accompanied him to the airport offices and informed him that he was in the middle of a power struggle between the tower and the airport authority/authorized. The tapes of his xmissions have been sent to the reporter's air carrier, but the reporter has not yet heard them. The runway was allegedly closed for an inspection, but there were no vehicles or people on the runway when the reporter landed. The reporter has not heard anything from the FAA on this matter. The reporter volunteered that he thought that there was no language problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR PLT MAY HAVE LANDED ON THE WRONG RWY.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED THE 'MATEO RWY 5R' ARR. UPON INTERCEPTING THE RWY 5R LOC AND CALLING TWR, WE WERE NOT CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 5R. AFTER OUR COMPANY SOP 1000 FT CALL, I REPLIED 'RWY 5R INSIGHT, NOT CLRED TO LAND.' AT APPROX 500 FT WE UNDERSTOOD TWR, AND CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED VIA RADIO, TO CLR US TO LAND ON RWY 5L. I TURNED TO INTERCEPT FOR A VISUAL RWY 5L LNDG. AROUND 300 FT I SAID 'RWY IS CLR,' CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED. AS WE WERE SLOWED TO TAXI SPD ON RWY 5L, WE WERE ADVISED BY TWR WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 5R, NOT RWY 5L. I RECALL SAYING AN APOLOGY, BUT WE HAD UNDERSTOOD CLRNC WAS FOR RWY 5L. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF TWR OR OURSELVES WOULD HAVE VERIFIED TWICE THE CORRECT RWY. I BELIEVE A SIMPLE AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE FROM THE TWR ONCE THE CAPT SAID 'CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 5L' WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE SIT. WE WERE TOLD LATER BY MEX ARPT AUTHS THAT RWY 5L WAS CLOSED. THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE NOTAMS OR ON ATIS TO ADVISE THIS CREW OF THAT. THERE ALSO WERE NO VEHICLES OR WORKERS ON RWY 5L. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 316314: AT NO TIME AFTER RECEIVING THE LNDG CLRNC WAS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 5L. THE RWY APPEARED TO BE CLR AND NO VEHICLES OR PERSONNEL WERE OBSERVED ON THE RWY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 316314 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR FLIES THE A320. AFTER TALKING TO THE ATCT PERSONNEL ON THE TELEPHONE, WHO ASSURED HIM THAT THERE WAS NO PROB, THE RPTR WAS INTERCEPTED AND DETAINED BY ARPT AUTHS. THEY TOOK COPIES OF HIS CERTIFICATES AND A STATEMENT. HIS ACR'S STATION PERSONNEL ACCOMPANIED HIM TO THE ARPT OFFICES AND INFORMED HIM THAT HE WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A PWR STRUGGLE BTWN THE TWR AND THE ARPT AUTH. THE TAPES OF HIS XMISSIONS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE RPTR'S ACR, BUT THE RPTR HAS NOT YET HEARD THEM. THE RWY WAS ALLEGEDLY CLOSED FOR AN INSPECTION, BUT THERE WERE NO VEHICLES OR PEOPLE ON THE RWY WHEN THE RPTR LANDED. THE RPTR HAS NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE FAA ON THIS MATTER. THE RPTR VOLUNTEERED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE PROB.

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.