Narrative:

The first officer was flying as we approached den from the southwest on a profile des. We reported the airport in sight about 7 mi out and were clrd for a visual approach to 17R. There is no instrument approach procedure published for 17R, so the ILS to 17L was tuned in for reference. The first officer made a close in short approach from a modified base. The navigation instruments confirmed what we saw visually. The numbers at the approach end of the runway were obscured by snow so we couldn't read them. The touchdown and landing were normal, but on the rollout it appeared that the runway was shorter than it should have been. After we rolled out to a stop I realized we were not on 17R. We got out the airport diagram and realized we landed on runway 18. We called the tower and were given taxi instructions to the gate. After we secured the aircraft I went inside and called the tower on the phone. The controller apologized to me because after he saw us on base leg, he said he went to the other side of the cabin attendant for some coffee. He didn't know we were on the wrong runway until we called for taxi clearance and told him where we were. Since there were no other operations going on and there was no conflict with any other traffic he said that it was no problem and would not be reported. I feel that if the first officer had not made the close in short approach and had flown a normal downwind leg, we would have had a better picture of the layout of the airport. I think that this situation could have been prevented by making a careful review of the airport diagram, making a standard traffic pattern instead of a short approach from base leg, getting vectors to final approach when no instrument procedures are published for a runway, and possibly if the controller was watching us he could have advised us that we were lined up with the wrong runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG WRONG RWY LNDG.

Narrative: THE F/O WAS FLYING AS WE APCHED DEN FROM THE SW ON A PROFILE DES. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT ABOUT 7 MI OUT AND WERE CLRD FOR A VISUAL APCH TO 17R. THERE IS NO INSTRUMENT APCH PROC PUBLISHED FOR 17R, SO THE ILS TO 17L WAS TUNED IN FOR REF. THE F/O MADE A CLOSE IN SHORT APCH FROM A MODIFIED BASE. THE NAV INSTRUMENTS CONFIRMED WHAT WE SAW VISUALLY. THE NUMBERS AT THE APCH END OF THE RWY WERE OBSCURED BY SNOW SO WE COULDN'T READ THEM. THE TOUCHDOWN AND LNDG WERE NORMAL, BUT ON THE ROLLOUT IT APPEARED THAT THE RWY WAS SHORTER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AFTER WE ROLLED OUT TO A STOP I REALIZED WE WERE NOT ON 17R. WE GOT OUT THE ARPT DIAGRAM AND REALIZED WE LANDED ON RWY 18. WE CALLED THE TWR AND WERE GIVEN TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GATE. AFTER WE SECURED THE ACFT I WENT INSIDE AND CALLED THE TWR ON THE PHONE. THE CTLR APOLOGIZED TO ME BECAUSE AFTER HE SAW US ON BASE LEG, HE SAID HE WENT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAB FOR SOME COFFEE. HE DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE ON THE WRONG RWY UNTIL WE CALLED FOR TAXI CLRNC AND TOLD HIM WHERE WE WERE. SINCE THERE WERE NO OTHER OPERATIONS GOING ON AND THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER TFC HE SAID THAT IT WAS NO PROB AND WOULD NOT BE RPTED. I FEEL THAT IF THE F/O HAD NOT MADE THE CLOSE IN SHORT APCH AND HAD FLOWN A NORMAL DOWNWIND LEG, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A BETTER PICTURE OF THE LAYOUT OF THE ARPT. I THINK THAT THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY MAKING A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE ARPT DIAGRAM, MAKING A STANDARD TFC PATTERN INSTEAD OF A SHORT APCH FROM BASE LEG, GETTING VECTORS TO FINAL APCH WHEN NO INSTRUMENT PROCS ARE PUBLISHED FOR A RWY, AND POSSIBLY IF THE CTLR WAS WATCHING US HE COULD HAVE ADVISED US THAT WE WERE LINED UP WITH THE WRONG RWY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.