Narrative:

Near the end of a long day, we were flying a visual approach into reno. The clearance given was 'you're cleared the sparks visual to runway 16R.' we missed the call to land on runway 16L and proceeded to land on the runway we always land on (runway 16R). Only the first 6000 ft were open and we did not see the barrels until the nose gear came down. The ATIS said the first 6000 ft were open for arrival on runway 16R, but nothing about the runway being closed. We were behind and had not taken adequate time to read all the NOTAMS for reno. We had flown into reno earlier this month and there was no construction on runway 16R. Add this to a 12 hour day and both of us missed it. This problem could have been avoided if I had read the NOTAMS. If the ATIS clearly stated runway 16R was under construction and closed past lima intersection. If tower had noticed we were about to land on the wrong runway. If tower had confirmed landing on runway 16L on my readback. If instead of getting the sparks visual to runway 16R we were given an initial clearance to land on runway 16L. If we were not rushed between flts. If we had questioned the vague ATIS of 'the first 6000 ft of runway 16R are available for arrs only. Supplemental information from acn 450312: telephoning the tower on the ground, they said they would examine the tapes. When I called back, they told me that I was cleared for sparks visual approach to runway 16R, but tower cleared me to land runway 16L. We landed on a runway that we were not cleared to land on. There was no separation problem or conflict, other than the construction (safety zone) area further down the runway, and this was the reason for the clearance to land on the left runway. Had I not rushed, I would have noted elsewhere the construction noted on a portion of runway 16R. This would have cautioned me to be heads-up for runway 16L. The controller should have said, 'sparks visual runway 16L.' no reason to even mention the right runway. On switching to tower, we were cleared to land. The tower personnel said we were to land runway 16L, but we did not hear this -- probably because we were set to land on runway 16R. Runway 16L is not normal air carrier landing runway. And since this was a fairly recent change, the controller should have been more emphatic in his clearance, or alert to our response to the clearance. This is not meant to impart blame, but it sure would have been helpful to us in this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR CLRED FOR CHARTED VISUAL APCH LANDS ON RWY SHORTENED BY CONSTRUCTION.

Narrative: NEAR THE END OF A LONG DAY, WE WERE FLYING A VISUAL APCH INTO RENO. THE CLRNC GIVEN WAS 'YOU'RE CLRED THE SPARKS VISUAL TO RWY 16R.' WE MISSED THE CALL TO LAND ON RWY 16L AND PROCEEDED TO LAND ON THE RWY WE ALWAYS LAND ON (RWY 16R). ONLY THE FIRST 6000 FT WERE OPEN AND WE DID NOT SEE THE BARRELS UNTIL THE NOSE GEAR CAME DOWN. THE ATIS SAID THE FIRST 6000 FT WERE OPEN FOR ARR ON RWY 16R, BUT NOTHING ABOUT THE RWY BEING CLOSED. WE WERE BEHIND AND HAD NOT TAKEN ADEQUATE TIME TO READ ALL THE NOTAMS FOR RENO. WE HAD FLOWN INTO RENO EARLIER THIS MONTH AND THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION ON RWY 16R. ADD THIS TO A 12 HR DAY AND BOTH OF US MISSED IT. THIS PROB COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF I HAD READ THE NOTAMS. IF THE ATIS CLRLY STATED RWY 16R WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSED PAST LIMA INTXN. IF TWR HAD NOTICED WE WERE ABOUT TO LAND ON THE WRONG RWY. IF TWR HAD CONFIRMED LNDG ON RWY 16L ON MY READBACK. IF INSTEAD OF GETTING THE SPARKS VISUAL TO RWY 16R WE WERE GIVEN AN INITIAL CLRNC TO LAND ON RWY 16L. IF WE WERE NOT RUSHED BTWN FLTS. IF WE HAD QUESTIONED THE VAGUE ATIS OF 'THE FIRST 6000 FT OF RWY 16R ARE AVAILABLE FOR ARRS ONLY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 450312: TELEPHONING THE TWR ON THE GND, THEY SAID THEY WOULD EXAMINE THE TAPES. WHEN I CALLED BACK, THEY TOLD ME THAT I WAS CLRED FOR SPARKS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 16R, BUT TWR CLRED ME TO LAND RWY 16L. WE LANDED ON A RWY THAT WE WERE NOT CLRED TO LAND ON. THERE WAS NO SEPARATION PROB OR CONFLICT, OTHER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION (SAFETY ZONE) AREA FURTHER DOWN THE RWY, AND THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THE CLRNC TO LAND ON THE L RWY. HAD I NOT RUSHED, I WOULD HAVE NOTED ELSEWHERE THE CONSTRUCTION NOTED ON A PORTION OF RWY 16R. THIS WOULD HAVE CAUTIONED ME TO BE HEADS-UP FOR RWY 16L. THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE SAID, 'SPARKS VISUAL RWY 16L.' NO REASON TO EVEN MENTION THE R RWY. ON SWITCHING TO TWR, WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. THE TWR PERSONNEL SAID WE WERE TO LAND RWY 16L, BUT WE DID NOT HEAR THIS -- PROBABLY BECAUSE WE WERE SET TO LAND ON RWY 16R. RWY 16L IS NOT NORMAL ACR LNDG RWY. AND SINCE THIS WAS A FAIRLY RECENT CHANGE, THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EMPHATIC IN HIS CLRNC, OR ALERT TO OUR RESPONSE TO THE CLRNC. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO IMPART BLAME, BUT IT SURE WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO US IN THIS SIT.

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.