Narrative:

Aircraft was on a VFR flight plan to pbi. Aircraft was cleared for a visual approach to runway 9R by tower. Pilot accepted visual for runway 9R. Traffic was light. There was 1 aircraft landing prior to myself and had been cleared from the runway prior to landing. There was no known traffic on runway 9L and no traffic on the txwys adjacent to runway 9R. Visibility was +6 mi. The pilot has been flying into pbi for the past 30 yrs and at least 6 times in the past yr. Within the past yr; a taxiway has been added between runway 9R and runway 9L. There is 1 VASI located to the left of runway 9R. The pilot landed on the taxiway to the left of runway 9R thinking it was the runway. Added to the confusion is the width of the taxiway and the 'newness' of the asphalt. The pilot forgot about the recent addition of the taxiway. The pilot recognized the error upon flaring; however; decided to land since a go around would have; perhaps; caused more of a problem. The pilot did not observe any traffic on the taxiway or in the vicinity of landing. Immediately upon landing; the pilot called the tower requesting taxi to customs. The pilot was asked to call ATC via landline. Having talked to ATC; it was learned that another aircraft landed on the taxiway the same afternoon and there had been 4 such incidents recently. The aircraft involved is pressurized and the air conditioning had failed on the return flight from myat. The cabin temperature was over 100 degrees F; contributing to pilot stress and the need to land as soon as possible. In addition; the pilot had to make evasive maneuvers prior to landing to avoid a flock of birds at approximately 150-200 ft. The outside air temperature was close to 90 degrees F with high humidity. This substantially contributed to the error. The typical VFR approach appears to be over lantana airport (5 mi to the south) and a tight right base to runway 9R. With lower visibility; this provides less time to set up a proper approach for those unfamiliar with the airport. I would recommend additional method of identing the active runway (runway 9R) to avoid confusion. The use of end of runway strobes or REIL lighting; or even the use of runway lighting during the daytime would avoid this problem. It appears this is a concern to the tower ATC personnel based on the phone conversation; and they are also looking at solutions for this problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C337 PLT LANDS ON NEW TXWY PARALLEL TO RWY 9R AT PBI.

Narrative: ACFT WAS ON A VFR FLT PLAN TO PBI. ACFT WAS CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 9R BY TWR. PLT ACCEPTED VISUAL FOR RWY 9R. TFC WAS LIGHT. THERE WAS 1 ACFT LNDG PRIOR TO MYSELF AND HAD BEEN CLRED FROM THE RWY PRIOR TO LNDG. THERE WAS NO KNOWN TFC ON RWY 9L AND NO TFC ON THE TXWYS ADJACENT TO RWY 9R. VISIBILITY WAS +6 MI. THE PLT HAS BEEN FLYING INTO PBI FOR THE PAST 30 YRS AND AT LEAST 6 TIMES IN THE PAST YR. WITHIN THE PAST YR; A TXWY HAS BEEN ADDED BTWN RWY 9R AND RWY 9L. THERE IS 1 VASI LOCATED TO THE L OF RWY 9R. THE PLT LANDED ON THE TXWY TO THE L OF RWY 9R THINKING IT WAS THE RWY. ADDED TO THE CONFUSION IS THE WIDTH OF THE TXWY AND THE 'NEWNESS' OF THE ASPHALT. THE PLT FORGOT ABOUT THE RECENT ADDITION OF THE TXWY. THE PLT RECOGNIZED THE ERROR UPON FLARING; HOWEVER; DECIDED TO LAND SINCE A GAR WOULD HAVE; PERHAPS; CAUSED MORE OF A PROB. THE PLT DID NOT OBSERVE ANY TFC ON THE TXWY OR IN THE VICINITY OF LNDG. IMMEDIATELY UPON LNDG; THE PLT CALLED THE TWR REQUESTING TAXI TO CUSTOMS. THE PLT WAS ASKED TO CALL ATC VIA LANDLINE. HAVING TALKED TO ATC; IT WAS LEARNED THAT ANOTHER ACFT LANDED ON THE TXWY THE SAME AFTERNOON AND THERE HAD BEEN 4 SUCH INCIDENTS RECENTLY. THE ACFT INVOLVED IS PRESSURIZED AND THE AIR CONDITIONING HAD FAILED ON THE RETURN FLT FROM MYAT. THE CABIN TEMP WAS OVER 100 DEGS F; CONTRIBUTING TO PLT STRESS AND THE NEED TO LAND ASAP. IN ADDITION; THE PLT HAD TO MAKE EVASIVE MANEUVERS PRIOR TO LNDG TO AVOID A FLOCK OF BIRDS AT APPROX 150-200 FT. THE OUTSIDE AIR TEMP WAS CLOSE TO 90 DEGS F WITH HIGH HUMIDITY. THIS SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE ERROR. THE TYPICAL VFR APCH APPEARS TO BE OVER LANTANA ARPT (5 MI TO THE S) AND A TIGHT R BASE TO RWY 9R. WITH LOWER VISIBILITY; THIS PROVIDES LESS TIME TO SET UP A PROPER APCH FOR THOSE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT. I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL METHOD OF IDENTING THE ACTIVE RWY (RWY 9R) TO AVOID CONFUSION. THE USE OF END OF RWY STROBES OR REIL LIGHTING; OR EVEN THE USE OF RWY LIGHTING DURING THE DAYTIME WOULD AVOID THIS PROB. IT APPEARS THIS IS A CONCERN TO THE TWR ATC PERSONNEL BASED ON THE PHONE CONVERSATION; AND THEY ARE ALSO LOOKING AT SOLUTIONS FOR THIS PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.