Narrative:

The event was termed 'pilot deviation.' inadvertent landing on the wrong runway. We were returning from (lebb) spain. This was our last stop for a crew change so as to continue to our destination, van nuys, ca. Concerned about our turn-around time, ATIS reported the ILS runway 4R and visual runway 4L were in use. Our intended FBO indicated a landing on runway 4L would expedite our taxi time. I instructed my copilot to request the visual runway 4L approach. The approach controller advised us he could not issue the visual, but the tower controller could issue the side step visual runway 4L. Still with the approach controller, being vectored, traffic was called and sighted. We were instructed to contact the tower. The tower cleared us to land runway 4R and my copilot acknowledged this. I corrected him on his mistake and he then asked for the visual runway 4L. Believing being cleared, I side stepped and landed visual runway 4L. Upon landing and taxi, I was asked to call the tower. That was my first indication something might be wrong. I contacted the boston tower supervisor. He informed me after he reviewed the recording tapes, that there had been a tower controller change just after we had been given clearance to land. I believe this might have caused them not to receive our request. Taxiing aircraft on the ground were cleared to taxi across the approach end of runway 4L. I heard this call and also heard the tower controller call us, as learjet traffic landing, 3 mi final. This further assured me I was cleared to land runway 4L visual. The threshold is displaced some 1500 ft or more, causing us to be quite high at the approach end of runway 4L. No conflict was imminent as the traffic had already cleared. I feel if I had corrected the radio call myself, and the timing change of the tower controller been a few seconds earlier or later, this could have been avoided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LEAR 36 FLT CREW INADVERTENTLY LANDS ON THE WRONG RWY.

Narrative: THE EVENT WAS TERMED 'PLTDEV.' INADVERTENT LNDG ON THE WRONG RWY. WE WERE RETURNING FROM (LEBB) SPAIN. THIS WAS OUR LAST STOP FOR A CREW CHANGE SO AS TO CONTINUE TO OUR DEST, VAN NUYS, CA. CONCERNED ABOUT OUR TURN-AROUND TIME, ATIS REPORTED THE ILS RWY 4R AND VISUAL RWY 4L WERE IN USE. OUR INTENDED FBO INDICATED A LNDG ON RWY 4L WOULD EXPEDITE OUR TAXI TIME. I INSTRUCTED MY COPLT TO REQUEST THE VISUAL RWY 4L APCH. THE APCH CTLR ADVISED US HE COULD NOT ISSUE THE VISUAL, BUT THE TWR CTLR COULD ISSUE THE SIDE STEP VISUAL RWY 4L. STILL WITH THE APCH CTLR, BEING VECTORED, TFC WAS CALLED AND SIGHTED. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT THE TWR. THE TWR CLRED US TO LAND RWY 4R AND MY COPLT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS. I CORRECTED HIM ON HIS MISTAKE AND HE THEN ASKED FOR THE VISUAL RWY 4L. BELIEVING BEING CLRED, I SIDE STEPPED AND LANDED VISUAL RWY 4L. UPON LNDG AND TAXI, I WAS ASKED TO CALL THE TWR. THAT WAS MY FIRST INDICATION SOMETHING MIGHT BE WRONG. I CONTACTED THE BOSTON TWR SUPVR. HE INFORMED ME AFTER HE REVIEWED THE RECORDING TAPES, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A TWR CTLR CHANGE JUST AFTER WE HAD BEEN GIVEN CLRNC TO LAND. I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THEM NOT TO RECEIVE OUR REQUEST. TAXIING ACFT ON THE GND WERE CLRED TO TAXI ACROSS THE APCH END OF RWY 4L. I HEARD THIS CALL AND ALSO HEARD THE TWR CTLR CALL US, AS LEARJET TFC LNDG, 3 MI FINAL. THIS FURTHER ASSURED ME I WAS CLRED TO LAND RWY 4L VISUAL. THE THRESHOLD IS DISPLACED SOME 1500 FT OR MORE, CAUSING US TO BE QUITE HIGH AT THE APCH END OF RWY 4L. NO CONFLICT WAS IMMINENT AS THE TFC HAD ALREADY CLRED. I FEEL IF I HAD CORRECTED THE RADIO CALL MYSELF, AND THE TIMING CHANGE OF THE TWR CTLR BEEN A FEW SECONDS EARLIER OR LATER, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

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.