Wrong runway landing by a CL65 flight crew at msn, wi.

Attributes
ACN	587106
Time
Date	200307
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : msn.airport
State Reference	WI
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : msn.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Regional Jet CL65, Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	landing : roll
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : msn.tracon tower : msn.tower
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 4400 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	587106
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	incursion : runway non adherence : clearance non adherence : far other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew Other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Madison approach control cleared us for visual approach to runway 18 in msn. The initial offer for the visual approach was declined by us since there were some scattered clouds between us and the airport. When we did see msn we did accept the visual approach and requested a turn to the right to widen out our base turn. Approach control informed us there was traffic to follow us and restr us from turning too far to the right. (I don't remember the heading.) we were handed off to msn tower and tower cleared us to land runway 18. First officer was flying the approach. I was completing the approach checklist and decluttering the FMS for our map guidance. The first officer remarked that we were too high on final. I looked outside and agreed and we both concluded that we could not continue from that point. I requested from msn tower for a left 360 degree turn to lose altitude. Tower hesitated briefly but approved us for the left 360 degree turn. He requested that we keep the turn tight as there was traffic to follow us. I had my head outside to monitor our altitude and relation from the runway. We completed our landing checklist by configuring with the final flap selection. Landing was uneventful. Tower then cleared us to cross runway 18 and taxi to our gate. Only tower's clearance to cross runway 18 cued us that we landed on runway 21 instead of runway 18 as assigned. Tower made no mention of any problem and we decided to call and confer with the tower supervisor via cell phone. We apologized for our error and the supervisor told us that there was no conflict. We believe the PF (first officer) perceived us being too high because we lined up runway 21 initially. By opting for a 360 degree turn, we thought that was safer than trying to dive down for the runway. When executing the 360 degree turn to lose altitude, we discussed which was the best maneuvering speed for stall protection. This distraction us from xchking our FMS map and CDI which gives us localizer reference as a back up. My head down during the initial maneuvering for the runway for the completion of the approach checklist and FMS programming was a contributing factor.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WRONG RWY LNDG BY A CL65 FLT CREW AT MSN, WI.

Narrative: MADISON APCH CTL CLRED US FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 18 IN MSN. THE INITIAL OFFER FOR THE VISUAL APCH WAS DECLINED BY US SINCE THERE WERE SOME SCATTERED CLOUDS BTWN US AND THE ARPT. WHEN WE DID SEE MSN WE DID ACCEPT THE VISUAL APCH AND REQUESTED A TURN TO THE R TO WIDEN OUT OUR BASE TURN. APCH CTL INFORMED US THERE WAS TFC TO FOLLOW US AND RESTR US FROM TURNING TOO FAR TO THE R. (I DON'T REMEMBER THE HDG.) WE WERE HANDED OFF TO MSN TWR AND TWR CLRED US TO LAND RWY 18. FO WAS FLYING THE APCH. I WAS COMPLETING THE APCH CHKLIST AND DECLUTTERING THE FMS FOR OUR MAP GUIDANCE. THE FO REMARKED THAT WE WERE TOO HIGH ON FINAL. I LOOKED OUTSIDE AND AGREED AND WE BOTH CONCLUDED THAT WE COULD NOT CONTINUE FROM THAT POINT. I REQUESTED FROM MSN TWR FOR A L 360 DEG TURN TO LOSE ALT. TWR HESITATED BRIEFLY BUT APPROVED US FOR THE L 360 DEG TURN. HE REQUESTED THAT WE KEEP THE TURN TIGHT AS THERE WAS TFC TO FOLLOW US. I HAD MY HEAD OUTSIDE TO MONITOR OUR ALT AND RELATION FROM THE RWY. WE COMPLETED OUR LNDG CHKLIST BY CONFIGURING WITH THE FINAL FLAP SELECTION. LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. TWR THEN CLRED US TO CROSS RWY 18 AND TAXI TO OUR GATE. ONLY TWR'S CLRNC TO CROSS RWY 18 CUED US THAT WE LANDED ON RWY 21 INSTEAD OF RWY 18 AS ASSIGNED. TWR MADE NO MENTION OF ANY PROB AND WE DECIDED TO CALL AND CONFER WITH THE TWR SUPVR VIA CELL PHONE. WE APOLOGIZED FOR OUR ERROR AND THE SUPVR TOLD US THAT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. WE BELIEVE THE PF (FO) PERCEIVED US BEING TOO HIGH BECAUSE WE LINED UP RWY 21 INITIALLY. BY OPTING FOR A 360 DEG TURN, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS SAFER THAN TRYING TO DIVE DOWN FOR THE RWY. WHEN EXECUTING THE 360 DEG TURN TO LOSE ALT, WE DISCUSSED WHICH WAS THE BEST MANEUVERING SPD FOR STALL PROTECTION. THIS DISTR US FROM XCHKING OUR FMS MAP AND CDI WHICH GIVES US LOC REF AS A BACK UP. MY HEAD DOWN DURING THE INITIAL MANEUVERING FOR THE RWY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE APCH CHKLIST AND FMS PROGRAMMING WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.

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.