Narrative:

Event problem: landed on runway 27R when assigned runway 27L. After almost 2 hours of training (air work and instrument approachs) with an instructor, I prepared to land at oak airport from san pablo bay about 25 mi northwest. ATIS information was received with numerous NOTAMS including taxiway closures and runway 27R closed. Bay approach advised to prepare for right traffic runway 27L. Closer in, but about 8 mi away, oak tower cleared me to land runway 27L with right traffic. On extended 45 degree leg, was told to turn downwind (4-5 mi away) for departing traffic and advised to look for traffic. After departing, traffic was no longer a factor. I re-entered on a 45 degree for right traffic. On downwind abeam the numbers, the instructor simulated an emergency engine power loss. At that time, I visually and mentally focused on the nearest runway (runway 27R) for the emergency glide descent. It wasn't until after the landing did we realize the mistake. In retrospect, I feel a number of subtle factors contributed to the error. I knew and acknowledged runway 27L as the assignment and I knew runway 27R was closed (from ATIS). Having done the right pattern for runway 27R many times before probably seduced me into thinking that the 'picture' or procedure seemed normal. The early clearance and traffic may have been a distracting factor. The simulated emergency landing procedure was definitely distracting because the exercise caused an extreme focus to 'get the glide descent right' and it caused a higher cockpit workload. The earlier air work and instrument approachs may have been fatiguing along with the anxiety of an instructor along. Focusing on the cockpit landing duties (landing checklist) may have added a distraction within the pattern. Possible ways to have caught the error might have been to speak aloud: 'cleared to land runway 27L' on short final, along with the gumps check. Confirming cleared to land with ATC on final may have help, but probably is not realistic in a busy radio environment. It may have been possible that ATC could have spotted the error visually or by radar. Perhaps simulated emergencys should be done only in a normal or standard pattern. Lastly, speak out aloud, 'this is not a normal entry pattern' to emphasize the unusual situation. Supplemental information from acn 504004: he did 2 short field lndgs. The pilot performed good and without any problems. So we decided to return to oak, check ride. The private pilot did the usual approach procedures by contacting oak approach and then handed off to the tower. At this point I was not paying any real attention to the 2-WAY conversation or the flight -- the private pilot seemed very capable. The private pilot confirmed twice 'cleared to land runway 27L.' for yrs we both have been going downwind for runway 274 -- it had become so routine. When we got permission to turn base, there was no more communication and there was no other aircraft on the approach or takeoff. I myself had paid no attention to the tower's instruction and never once thought 'is it ok to land on this runway?' -- an instance of complacency -- a creature of routine! The tower told us of the error. Perhaps since there was no equipment on the runways, I unconsciously thought that runway 27R was open again. Perhaps the tower could have helped a little more by watching approaching aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 TRAINING FLT LANDS ON THE WRONG RWY, A CLOSED RWY, AT OAK, CA.

Narrative: EVENT PROB: LANDED ON RWY 27R WHEN ASSIGNED RWY 27L. AFTER ALMOST 2 HRS OF TRAINING (AIR WORK AND INST APCHS) WITH AN INSTRUCTOR, I PREPARED TO LAND AT OAK ARPT FROM SAN PABLO BAY ABOUT 25 MI NW. ATIS INFO WAS RECEIVED WITH NUMEROUS NOTAMS INCLUDING TXWY CLOSURES AND RWY 27R CLOSED. BAY APCH ADVISED TO PREPARE FOR R TFC RWY 27L. CLOSER IN, BUT ABOUT 8 MI AWAY, OAK TWR CLRED ME TO LAND RWY 27L WITH R TFC. ON EXTENDED 45 DEG LEG, WAS TOLD TO TURN DOWNWIND (4-5 MI AWAY) FOR DEPARTING TFC AND ADVISED TO LOOK FOR TFC. AFTER DEPARTING, TFC WAS NO LONGER A FACTOR. I RE-ENTERED ON A 45 DEG FOR R TFC. ON DOWNWIND ABEAM THE NUMBERS, THE INSTRUCTOR SIMULATED AN EMER ENG PWR LOSS. AT THAT TIME, I VISUALLY AND MENTALLY FOCUSED ON THE NEAREST RWY (RWY 27R) FOR THE EMER GLIDE DSCNT. IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER THE LNDG DID WE REALIZE THE MISTAKE. IN RETROSPECT, I FEEL A NUMBER OF SUBTLE FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE ERROR. I KNEW AND ACKNOWLEDGED RWY 27L AS THE ASSIGNMENT AND I KNEW RWY 27R WAS CLOSED (FROM ATIS). HAVING DONE THE R PATTERN FOR RWY 27R MANY TIMES BEFORE PROBABLY SEDUCED ME INTO THINKING THAT THE 'PICTURE' OR PROC SEEMED NORMAL. THE EARLY CLRNC AND TFC MAY HAVE BEEN A DISTRACTING FACTOR. THE SIMULATED EMER LNDG PROC WAS DEFINITELY DISTRACTING BECAUSE THE EXERCISE CAUSED AN EXTREME FOCUS TO 'GET THE GLIDE DSCNT RIGHT' AND IT CAUSED A HIGHER COCKPIT WORKLOAD. THE EARLIER AIR WORK AND INST APCHS MAY HAVE BEEN FATIGUING ALONG WITH THE ANXIETY OF AN INSTRUCTOR ALONG. FOCUSING ON THE COCKPIT LNDG DUTIES (LNDG CHKLIST) MAY HAVE ADDED A DISTR WITHIN THE PATTERN. POSSIBLE WAYS TO HAVE CAUGHT THE ERROR MIGHT HAVE BEEN TO SPEAK ALOUD: 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 27L' ON SHORT FINAL, ALONG WITH THE GUMPS CHK. CONFIRMING CLRED TO LAND WITH ATC ON FINAL MAY HAVE HELP, BUT PROBABLY IS NOT REALISTIC IN A BUSY RADIO ENVIRONMENT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE THAT ATC COULD HAVE SPOTTED THE ERROR VISUALLY OR BY RADAR. PERHAPS SIMULATED EMERS SHOULD BE DONE ONLY IN A NORMAL OR STANDARD PATTERN. LASTLY, SPEAK OUT ALOUD, 'THIS IS NOT A NORMAL ENTRY PATTERN' TO EMPHASIZE THE UNUSUAL SIT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 504004: HE DID 2 SHORT FIELD LNDGS. THE PLT PERFORMED GOOD AND WITHOUT ANY PROBS. SO WE DECIDED TO RETURN TO OAK, CHK RIDE. THE PVT PLT DID THE USUAL APCH PROCS BY CONTACTING OAK APCH AND THEN HANDED OFF TO THE TWR. AT THIS POINT I WAS NOT PAYING ANY REAL ATTN TO THE 2-WAY CONVERSATION OR THE FLT -- THE PVT PLT SEEMED VERY CAPABLE. THE PVT PLT CONFIRMED TWICE 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 27L.' FOR YRS WE BOTH HAVE BEEN GOING DOWNWIND FOR RWY 274 -- IT HAD BECOME SO ROUTINE. WHEN WE GOT PERMISSION TO TURN BASE, THERE WAS NO MORE COM AND THERE WAS NO OTHER ACFT ON THE APCH OR TKOF. I MYSELF HAD PAID NO ATTN TO THE TWR'S INSTRUCTION AND NEVER ONCE THOUGHT 'IS IT OK TO LAND ON THIS RWY?' -- AN INSTANCE OF COMPLACENCY -- A CREATURE OF ROUTINE! THE TWR TOLD US OF THE ERROR. PERHAPS SINCE THERE WAS NO EQUIP ON THE RWYS, I UNCONSCIOUSLY THOUGHT THAT RWY 27R WAS OPEN AGAIN. PERHAPS THE TWR COULD HAVE HELPED A LITTLE MORE BY WATCHING APCHING ACFT.

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.