Narrative:

On approach to ftg I observed what I thought was the runway. There are two txwys; a and C. These txwys are very distinct from far out. The runway; however; blends into the surrounding terrain. I had forgotten about the two txwys side by side. Though I have landed at ftg a few times I completely forgot about the two side by side txwys. It looks like a runway and taxiway. The runway is virtually invisible because of the terrain and vegetation. I am not making excuses and still cannot believe I did such a foolish thing. I called the tower and they stated it was a common almost weekly event. They also stated it would not be a pilot deviation and would be handled in the tower; noted; logged and concluded. In my opinion a couple of suggestions. REIL lights should be installed; the ATIS should inform pilots not to land on taxiway bravo -- this ATIS information is broadcast at another airfield. The taxiway should be marked no landing or any other means of informing pilots of the possible conflict. The tower knows there is a problem. The FAA should work in conjunction with the airport to rectify the situation.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the first airport surfaces he saw were two dark; paved areas. He did not have his ILS tuned and so was not relying on a backup information source. The runway is behind a small rise in the ground which tends to hide the runway end and since the two taxiway surfaces are darker than the runway; they are more easily picked out. In this case when he locked on to taxiway a; he unconsciously stopped looking at other visual cues. The tower controller stated to the reporter that several times a year pilots land on this taxiway. The tower has requested additional markings on both the txwys and runway end identifier lights.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MU2 PLT RPTS LNDG ON FTG TXWY A BECAUSE IT IS MORE VISUALLY PROMINENT THAN RWY 26.

Narrative: ON APCH TO FTG I OBSERVED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE RWY. THERE ARE TWO TXWYS; A AND C. THESE TXWYS ARE VERY DISTINCT FROM FAR OUT. THE RWY; HOWEVER; BLENDS INTO THE SURROUNDING TERRAIN. I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE TWO TXWYS SIDE BY SIDE. THOUGH I HAVE LANDED AT FTG A FEW TIMES I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THE TWO SIDE BY SIDE TXWYS. IT LOOKS LIKE A RWY AND TXWY. THE RWY IS VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE BECAUSE OF THE TERRAIN AND VEGETATION. I AM NOT MAKING EXCUSES AND STILL CANNOT BELIEVE I DID SUCH A FOOLISH THING. I CALLED THE TWR AND THEY STATED IT WAS A COMMON ALMOST WEEKLY EVENT. THEY ALSO STATED IT WOULD NOT BE A PLT DEV AND WOULD BE HANDLED IN THE TWR; NOTED; LOGGED AND CONCLUDED. IN MY OPINION A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS. REIL LIGHTS SHOULD BE INSTALLED; THE ATIS SHOULD INFORM PLTS NOT TO LAND ON TXWY BRAVO -- THIS ATIS INFO IS BROADCAST AT ANOTHER AIRFIELD. THE TXWY SHOULD BE MARKED NO LANDING OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF INFORMING PLTS OF THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT. THE TWR KNOWS THERE IS A PROBLEM. THE FAA SHOULD WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ARPT TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE FIRST ARPT SURFACES HE SAW WERE TWO DARK; PAVED AREAS. HE DID NOT HAVE HIS ILS TUNED AND SO WAS NOT RELYING ON A BACKUP INFO SOURCE. THE RWY IS BEHIND A SMALL RISE IN THE GND WHICH TENDS TO HIDE THE RWY END AND SINCE THE TWO TXWY SURFACES ARE DARKER THAN THE RWY; THEY ARE MORE EASILY PICKED OUT. IN THIS CASE WHEN HE LOCKED ON TO TXWY A; HE UNCONSCIOUSLY STOPPED LOOKING AT OTHER VISUAL CUES. THE TWR CTLR STATED TO THE RPTR THAT SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR PLTS LAND ON THIS TXWY. THE TWR HAS REQUESTED ADDITIONAL MARKINGS ON BOTH THE TXWYS AND RWY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS.

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.