Narrative:

Picked up weather and it stated winds variable at 4 KTS with good visibility and clear skies. The first officer was pilot flying and briefed a visual approach to runway 35 as that is the preferred landing runway during normal operations (per company). I made a 20nm call on unicom to advise traffic of our position and intentions (to enter left traffic for runway 35). At that time I heard another aircraft state that they were on a visual approach for runway 17. I informed the first officer of this traffic and we both agreed to continue for runway 35 as we felt that the traffic landing would not be an issue as they had plenty of time to complete their approach unimpeded by ours. We also briefed that if the situation arose where we felt that it would be safer to land on runway 17 (due only to traffic) that we would simply enter left traffic for that runway. As we entered to within 10 miles of the airport I canceled with approach (we were already cleared for the visual) and then made a ten mile call on the unicom frequency - at this time the traffic who previously stated that they were on an approach for 17 said that they were on a 4 mile for 17. The first officer and I discussed it and we again both agreed that that we still had adequate spacing to land on 35 after the traffic cleared the runway. If not we would simply join the downwind leg for 17 and complete the approach for 17. Based on our location we decided to join an extended final (approximately 8 miles out) for 35 - I then made a 7 mile final for 35 call at which time the traffic approaching 17 stated 'we are approaching short final for 17'. I then stated on the radio that I understood and that I had visual contact with them (which I did prior to joining final) and to please report clear of 17. They stated that they would. The first officer and I again briefly discussed that in the event of a go around by the other aircraft we would simply enter the left downwind for 17. The aircraft landing on 17 made an uneventful landing and taxied off the runway and called clear of the runway. I thanked them and stated that we were on a 4 mile final for runway 35. We then landed without any incident. All checklists were completed normally and without interruption and all maneuvers were performed according to company policy. While on the flight back several issues became apparent to me - one is that while I do not feel that we reduced our level of safety in any way (we always maintained adequate separation and we always had an out) it would have been more prudent to just enter the downwind for 17 to completely eliminate any chance of a conflict with the other aircraft. The second issue was that I assumed that the aircraft was a full stop and I assumed that the other aircraft crew was equal in experience to our own; which could have turned a benign situation into a more severe one. Ultimately runway 35 was best suited for us but in this situation (in hindsight) it would have been preferable to enter left traffic for 17.this was day 6 for both the first officer and I - we were both junior manned for this trip. The first officer had a two hour drive prior to beginning this trip. I had worked several long trips prior to this; and while I don't believe either of us was necessarily aware that we were tired; I think that we both were. This was leg 4 of a 6 leg day. I think that we both settled into the easiest route so that we could just get it over with. We need to constantly force ourselves to think proactively and to seek out threats. I also think that there needs to be more reasonable expectations of crew members when it comes to scheduling duty and flight times.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier Captain laments his decision to land against traffic at an uncontrolled airport. A long duty day and cumulative fatigue from multiple days of flying are cited as factors.

Narrative: Picked up weather and it stated winds variable at 4 KTS with good visibility and clear skies. The First Officer was pilot flying and briefed a visual approach to Runway 35 as that is the preferred landing runway during normal operations (per company). I made a 20nm call on Unicom to advise traffic of our position and intentions (to enter left traffic for Runway 35). At that time I heard another aircraft state that they were on a visual approach for Runway 17. I informed the First Officer of this traffic and we both agreed to continue for Runway 35 as we felt that the traffic landing would not be an issue as they had plenty of time to complete their approach unimpeded by ours. We also briefed that if the situation arose where we felt that it would be safer to land on Runway 17 (due only to traffic) that we would simply enter left traffic for that runway. As we entered to within 10 miles of the airport I canceled with Approach (we were already cleared for the visual) and then made a ten mile call on the Unicom frequency - at this time the traffic who previously stated that they were on an approach for 17 said that they were on a 4 mile for 17. The First Officer and I discussed it and we again both agreed that that we still had adequate spacing to land on 35 after the traffic cleared the runway. If not we would simply join the downwind leg for 17 and complete the approach for 17. Based on our location we decided to join an extended final (approximately 8 miles out) for 35 - I then made a 7 mile final for 35 call at which time the traffic approaching 17 stated 'we are approaching short final for 17'. I then stated on the radio that I understood and that I had visual contact with them (which I did prior to joining final) and to please report clear of 17. They stated that they would. The First Officer and I again briefly discussed that in the event of a go around by the other aircraft we would simply enter the left downwind for 17. The aircraft landing on 17 made an uneventful landing and taxied off the runway and called clear of the runway. I thanked them and stated that we were on a 4 mile final for Runway 35. We then landed without any incident. All checklists were completed normally and without interruption and all maneuvers were performed according to company policy. While on the flight back several issues became apparent to me - one is that while I do not feel that we reduced our level of safety in any way (we always maintained adequate separation and we always had an out) it would have been more prudent to just enter the downwind for 17 to completely eliminate any chance of a conflict with the other aircraft. The second issue was that I assumed that the aircraft was a full stop and I assumed that the other aircraft crew was equal in experience to our own; which could have turned a benign situation into a more severe one. Ultimately Runway 35 was best suited for us but in this situation (in hindsight) it would have been preferable to enter left traffic for 17.This was day 6 for both the First Officer and I - we were both junior manned for this trip. The First Officer had a two hour drive prior to beginning this trip. I had worked several long trips prior to this; and while I don't believe either of us was necessarily aware that we were tired; I think that we both were. This was leg 4 of a 6 leg day. I think that we both settled into the easiest route so that we could just get it over with. We need to constantly force ourselves to think proactively and to seek out threats. I also think that there needs to be more reasonable expectations of crew members when it comes to scheduling duty and flight times.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.