Narrative:

Initially directed to land on runway 36, then requested to transition to right downwind for runway 9. Directed to follow single engine cessna to landing runway 9. Cleared to land. Landed on runway 9L instead of runway 9R. Called tower after landing to discuss -- no hazard to other aircraft on runway or on approach, none were present at time. Not clearly advised of runway 9L versus runway 9R. Runway 9R is actually a converted taxiway, 3578 ft by 75 ft versus 8001 ft by 150 ft for runway 9L. Runway 9R is not recognizable as a landing area when compared to prominence of runway 9L, and both are within 500 ft laterally. Recommend strobes or other positive identify of runways and advice from local tower personnel regarding close proximity of runways 9L and 9R. Made another landing approximately 1 hour later and noted that even when dual runway situation is known, runway 9R is virtually invisible compared to runway 9L from about 1-2 mi out on final. Had to confirm with tower the correct landing runway. Should not have had to solicit runway 9L versus runway 9R from tower -- this information should be clearly communicated from tower to landing aircraft. This situation is 'an accident waiting to happen.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he had never been to this airport before. The last min switch of runways made for a rush to find the cessna and identify the assigned runway. He lost sight of the cessna and turned toward the runway without seeing any other traffic. After landing the controller said it happens a lot. The reason for the trip was to install a GPS and after installation he took off with a technician aboard to flight test the equipment. He noticed again that there was not a good indication of right or left runway to be used, he had to clarify that himself. The technician said it used to be a taxiway and was converted when the larger acrs began to use the airport. There were several jets of european origin parked on the ramp. Reporter stated that the tower operation seems very casual, perhaps because of a lot of training activity and small aircraft using the field. He feels they need to get more professional in their procedures.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C414 PLT DOES NOT REALIZE THERE ARE PARALLEL RWYS BECAUSE IT IS A CONVERTED TXWY AND TWR DOES NOT INDICATE FOR HIM TO USE R OR L RWY. HE LANDS ON THE WRONG RWY.

Narrative: INITIALLY DIRECTED TO LAND ON RWY 36, THEN REQUESTED TO TRANSITION TO R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 9. DIRECTED TO FOLLOW SINGLE ENG CESSNA TO LNDG RWY 9. CLRED TO LAND. LANDED ON RWY 9L INSTEAD OF RWY 9R. CALLED TWR AFTER LNDG TO DISCUSS -- NO HAZARD TO OTHER ACFT ON RWY OR ON APCH, NONE WERE PRESENT AT TIME. NOT CLRLY ADVISED OF RWY 9L VERSUS RWY 9R. RWY 9R IS ACTUALLY A CONVERTED TXWY, 3578 FT BY 75 FT VERSUS 8001 FT BY 150 FT FOR RWY 9L. RWY 9R IS NOT RECOGNIZABLE AS A LNDG AREA WHEN COMPARED TO PROMINENCE OF RWY 9L, AND BOTH ARE WITHIN 500 FT LATERALLY. RECOMMEND STROBES OR OTHER POSITIVE IDENT OF RWYS AND ADVICE FROM LCL TWR PERSONNEL REGARDING CLOSE PROX OF RWYS 9L AND 9R. MADE ANOTHER LNDG APPROX 1 HR LATER AND NOTED THAT EVEN WHEN DUAL RWY SIT IS KNOWN, RWY 9R IS VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE COMPARED TO RWY 9L FROM ABOUT 1-2 MI OUT ON FINAL. HAD TO CONFIRM WITH TWR THE CORRECT LNDG RWY. SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO SOLICIT RWY 9L VERSUS RWY 9R FROM TWR -- THIS INFO SHOULD BE CLRLY COMMUNICATED FROM TWR TO LNDG ACFT. THIS SIT IS 'AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN TO THIS ARPT BEFORE. THE LAST MIN SWITCH OF RWYS MADE FOR A RUSH TO FIND THE CESSNA AND IDENT THE ASSIGNED RWY. HE LOST SIGHT OF THE CESSNA AND TURNED TOWARD THE RWY WITHOUT SEEING ANY OTHER TFC. AFTER LNDG THE CTLR SAID IT HAPPENS A LOT. THE REASON FOR THE TRIP WAS TO INSTALL A GPS AND AFTER INSTALLATION HE TOOK OFF WITH A TECHNICIAN ABOARD TO FLT TEST THE EQUIP. HE NOTICED AGAIN THAT THERE WAS NOT A GOOD INDICATION OF R OR L RWY TO BE USED, HE HAD TO CLARIFY THAT HIMSELF. THE TECHNICIAN SAID IT USED TO BE A TXWY AND WAS CONVERTED WHEN THE LARGER ACRS BEGAN TO USE THE ARPT. THERE WERE SEVERAL JETS OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN PARKED ON THE RAMP. RPTR STATED THAT THE TWR OP SEEMS VERY CASUAL, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF A LOT OF TRAINING ACTIVITY AND SMALL ACFT USING THE FIELD. HE FEELS THEY NEED TO GET MORE PROFESSIONAL IN THEIR PROCS.

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.