Narrative:

On may/xa/00 I acted as sic and the PF on flight from chicago, il, to cedar rapids, ia. The WX was VFR and we were initially vectored for runway 27. On the downwind leg we were notified by ATC that another aircraft had landed hard on the runway leaving debris behind which was going to close the runway for approximately 10 mins. We extended the downwind to allow more time for the runway to reopen. After being cleared for the visual approach and on an approximately 2 SM final, ATC advised us that runway 27 was still closed and asked if we wanted to land on runway 31. We reconfigured, repositioned the aircraft, and the captain evaluated the runway data for a possible landing on runway 31. During this time of high workload, I inadvertently got 400 ft above the assigned altitude of 2500 ft MSL. While in the process of immediately correcting this deviation, ATC inquired as to our altitude and heading. Shortly thereafter, tower informed us that runway 27 was open and asked for vectors for landing runway 27. We flew a normal VFR approach and landed on runway 27, which was longer and more suitable. We were not informed by ATC that any type of conflict or violation had occurred that day. More attention to verifying all altitudes and headings during times of reconfiguring and high workload could have prevented any misunderstandings or deviations from occurring. Also, I feel the use of the autoplt throughout the approach until the landing runway was assured could have reduced the workload, giving more time to assure all clrncs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALTDEV DURING DELAYING VECTORS FOR ARR TO CEDAR RAPIDS, IA.

Narrative: ON MAY/XA/00 I ACTED AS SIC AND THE PF ON FLT FROM CHICAGO, IL, TO CEDAR RAPIDS, IA. THE WX WAS VFR AND WE WERE INITIALLY VECTORED FOR RWY 27. ON THE DOWNWIND LEG WE WERE NOTIFIED BY ATC THAT ANOTHER ACFT HAD LANDED HARD ON THE RWY LEAVING DEBRIS BEHIND WHICH WAS GOING TO CLOSE THE RWY FOR APPROX 10 MINS. WE EXTENDED THE DOWNWIND TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR THE RWY TO REOPEN. AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH AND ON AN APPROX 2 SM FINAL, ATC ADVISED US THAT RWY 27 WAS STILL CLOSED AND ASKED IF WE WANTED TO LAND ON RWY 31. WE RECONFIGURED, REPOSITIONED THE ACFT, AND THE CAPT EVALUATED THE RWY DATA FOR A POSSIBLE LNDG ON RWY 31. DURING THIS TIME OF HIGH WORKLOAD, I INADVERTENTLY GOT 400 FT ABOVE THE ASSIGNED ALT OF 2500 FT MSL. WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF IMMEDIATELY CORRECTING THIS DEV, ATC INQUIRED AS TO OUR ALT AND HDG. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, TWR INFORMED US THAT RWY 27 WAS OPEN AND ASKED FOR VECTORS FOR LNDG RWY 27. WE FLEW A NORMAL VFR APCH AND LANDED ON RWY 27, WHICH WAS LONGER AND MORE SUITABLE. WE WERE NOT INFORMED BY ATC THAT ANY TYPE OF CONFLICT OR VIOLATION HAD OCCURRED THAT DAY. MORE ATTN TO VERIFYING ALL ALTS AND HDGS DURING TIMES OF RECONFIGURING AND HIGH WORKLOAD COULD HAVE PREVENTED ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR DEVS FROM OCCURRING. ALSO, I FEEL THE USE OF THE AUTOPLT THROUGHOUT THE APCH UNTIL THE LNDG RWY WAS ASSURED COULD HAVE REDUCED THE WORKLOAD, GIVING MORE TIME TO ASSURE ALL CLRNCS.

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.