Narrative:

The captain left the frequency to get ATIS. While he is off I was cleared to 8000 ft. When captain returned he said bmi using VOR-DME 21 circle 20 approach, and runway 11/29 closed. We both looked at airport diagram and saw runway 21 but not runway 20. We were both puzzled. There was a runway under construction on our diagram, but no indication of what runway it was, ie runway 20, runway 19, runway 8 or if it was finished. The ATIS did not mention anything about a new runway being opened. Captain distracted me by asking if I had the current charts which we both did. And by determining if we had landing performance to legally land on runway 21 which was 3723 ft long, which we also had. Captain left frequency again to talk to bmi tower and dispatch. While he was off, I was cleared to 5000 ft, then 2500 ft and told to contact bmi approach. Bmi approach cleared me to 2400 ft and intercept VOR-DME 21 approach course. When captain returned I called for descent and approach checks. Captain performed both. When he came to the airport brief part, I asked him if he wanted me to break off the approach. He said, 'no, we're all set up.' so I continued. With little discussion we both concluded that runway 21 had been renumbered runway 20. I assumed captain had clarified this when he talked to tower earlier. He apparently didn't ask about runway 20, instead asked about runway 11/29. I made a normal, uneventful landing on runway 21. Tower never said anything to us as we taxied in and parked. The captain and I discussed our confusion over runway 20, when he noticed a runway direction sign on the ramp and noticed runway 20 among the 6 runways shown. The captain talked to both tower supervisor and station personnel. The tower supervisor said they were distraction by another plane that was lost, and didn't see us land on runway 21. In fact, they just laughed and said don't worry about it, or so said the captain. Station personnel said runway 20 had been open only 1 1/2 hours before our arrival. We received no NOTAMS from dispatch, station, ATIS, tower, or even our 'chart NOTAMS' about this new runway 20 being opened today. Of the many mistakes that occurred in this incident, the biggest mistake was not breaking off the approach when I mentioned it to the captain. In the future to prevent this from happening, the solution is to ask 'stupid' questions, ie, 'we don't show a runway 20 on our charts.' or, 'is runway 21 renumbered 20?' with all the resources we had available, we choose to complicate matters rather than simplify them with a simple 'stupid' question. Other factors that may have affected quality of human performance. 1) on duty 10 hours before having opportunity to eat food (pretzels and coke not a substitute for food). 2) leg 6 of a 7 leg day on day 4 of 4 day trip makes one tired, but not fatigued (I had adequate rest). 3) captain was instructor pilot with little recent line flying experience.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF LTT LANDS ON WRONG RWY WHEN NEW RWY OPENED BUT NOT NOTED ON ATIS.

Narrative: THE CAPT LEFT THE FREQ TO GET ATIS. WHILE HE IS OFF I WAS CLRED TO 8000 FT. WHEN CAPT RETURNED HE SAID BMI USING VOR-DME 21 CIRCLE 20 APCH, AND RWY 11/29 CLOSED. WE BOTH LOOKED AT ARPT DIAGRAM AND SAW RWY 21 BUT NOT RWY 20. WE WERE BOTH PUZZLED. THERE WAS A RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON OUR DIAGRAM, BUT NO INDICATION OF WHAT RWY IT WAS, IE RWY 20, RWY 19, RWY 8 OR IF IT WAS FINISHED. THE ATIS DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT A NEW RWY BEING OPENED. CAPT DISTRACTED ME BY ASKING IF I HAD THE CURRENT CHARTS WHICH WE BOTH DID. AND BY DETERMINING IF WE HAD LNDG PERFORMANCE TO LEGALLY LAND ON RWY 21 WHICH WAS 3723 FT LONG, WHICH WE ALSO HAD. CAPT LEFT FREQ AGAIN TO TALK TO BMI TWR AND DISPATCH. WHILE HE WAS OFF, I WAS CLRED TO 5000 FT, THEN 2500 FT AND TOLD TO CONTACT BMI APCH. BMI APCH CLRED ME TO 2400 FT AND INTERCEPT VOR-DME 21 APCH COURSE. WHEN CAPT RETURNED I CALLED FOR DSCNT AND APCH CHKS. CAPT PERFORMED BOTH. WHEN HE CAME TO THE ARPT BRIEF PART, I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ME TO BREAK OFF THE APCH. HE SAID, 'NO, WE'RE ALL SET UP.' SO I CONTINUED. WITH LITTLE DISCUSSION WE BOTH CONCLUDED THAT RWY 21 HAD BEEN RENUMBERED RWY 20. I ASSUMED CAPT HAD CLARIFIED THIS WHEN HE TALKED TO TWR EARLIER. HE APPARENTLY DIDN'T ASK ABOUT RWY 20, INSTEAD ASKED ABOUT RWY 11/29. I MADE A NORMAL, UNEVENTFUL LNDG ON RWY 21. TWR NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO US AS WE TAXIED IN AND PARKED. THE CAPT AND I DISCUSSED OUR CONFUSION OVER RWY 20, WHEN HE NOTICED A RWY DIRECTION SIGN ON THE RAMP AND NOTICED RWY 20 AMONG THE 6 RWYS SHOWN. THE CAPT TALKED TO BOTH TWR SUPVR AND STATION PERSONNEL. THE TWR SUPVR SAID THEY WERE DISTR BY ANOTHER PLANE THAT WAS LOST, AND DIDN'T SEE US LAND ON RWY 21. IN FACT, THEY JUST LAUGHED AND SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, OR SO SAID THE CAPT. STATION PERSONNEL SAID RWY 20 HAD BEEN OPEN ONLY 1 1/2 HRS BEFORE OUR ARR. WE RECEIVED NO NOTAMS FROM DISPATCH, STATION, ATIS, TWR, OR EVEN OUR 'CHART NOTAMS' ABOUT THIS NEW RWY 20 BEING OPENED TODAY. OF THE MANY MISTAKES THAT OCCURRED IN THIS INCIDENT, THE BIGGEST MISTAKE WAS NOT BREAKING OFF THE APCH WHEN I MENTIONED IT TO THE CAPT. IN THE FUTURE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING, THE SOLUTION IS TO ASK 'STUPID' QUESTIONS, IE, 'WE DON'T SHOW A RWY 20 ON OUR CHARTS.' OR, 'IS RWY 21 RENUMBERED 20?' WITH ALL THE RESOURCES WE HAD AVAILABLE, WE CHOOSE TO COMPLICATE MATTERS RATHER THAN SIMPLIFY THEM WITH A SIMPLE 'STUPID' QUESTION. OTHER FACTORS THAT MAY HAVE AFFECTED QUALITY OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE. 1) ON DUTY 10 HRS BEFORE HAVING OPPORTUNITY TO EAT FOOD (PRETZELS AND COKE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR FOOD). 2) LEG 6 OF A 7 LEG DAY ON DAY 4 OF 4 DAY TRIP MAKES ONE TIRED, BUT NOT FATIGUED (I HAD ADEQUATE REST). 3) CAPT WAS INSTRUCTOR PLT WITH LITTLE RECENT LINE FLYING EXPERIENCE.

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.