Narrative:

Situation: expecting to land on a 10500' X 150' runway, we instead landed on a parallel 3400' X 60' runway. Events: we were vectored by clark approach and cleared for the VOR runway 2 approach. We made visual contact with runway lights at approximately 10 DME (approximately 7 mi from runway threshold). Clark tower cleared us to land on runway 2. VASI and approach lights were out. (VASI had been OTS for at least 2 days.) the major contributing factor was: 1) the 10500' runway lights were off and 2) the 3400' runway lights were on. Other contributing factors: 1) no mention on commercial charts that the parallel runway has lights. 2) while not exactly proportional, the shorter, narrower runway appeared normal until T/D. Thinking I was landing on a 10500' X 150' runway, my depth perception was off. T/D occurred just as I realized there were no runway markings. At the time of T/D, I thought I still had a lot of altitude. 3) I did not reconfirm that approach lights were OTS. If I had asked, the tower might have caught their mistake and turned on the correct lights. This was my biggest error. However, with the runway lights in sight from so far out, I didn't feel that I needed approach lights anyway. Solutions: 1) create a backcourse approach to the long runway. 2) make note on approach plates that the short runway does have lights. 3) designate runway 2 left and 2 right. This will reinforce the pilot's knowledge that there are 2 parallel runways. This incident could not have happened in the daylight, but could happen again at night.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR HVT WRONG RWY APCH LNDG.

Narrative: SITUATION: EXPECTING TO LAND ON A 10500' X 150' RWY, WE INSTEAD LANDED ON A PARALLEL 3400' X 60' RWY. EVENTS: WE WERE VECTORED BY CLARK APCH AND CLRED FOR THE VOR RWY 2 APCH. WE MADE VISUAL CONTACT WITH RWY LIGHTS AT APPROX 10 DME (APPROX 7 MI FROM RWY THRESHOLD). CLARK TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 2. VASI AND APCH LIGHTS WERE OUT. (VASI HAD BEEN OTS FOR AT LEAST 2 DAYS.) THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS: 1) THE 10500' RWY LIGHTS WERE OFF AND 2) THE 3400' RWY LIGHTS WERE ON. OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) NO MENTION ON COMMERCIAL CHARTS THAT THE PARALLEL RWY HAS LIGHTS. 2) WHILE NOT EXACTLY PROPORTIONAL, THE SHORTER, NARROWER RWY APPEARED NORMAL UNTIL T/D. THINKING I WAS LNDG ON A 10500' X 150' RWY, MY DEPTH PERCEPTION WAS OFF. T/D OCCURRED JUST AS I REALIZED THERE WERE NO RWY MARKINGS. AT THE TIME OF T/D, I THOUGHT I STILL HAD A LOT OF ALT. 3) I DID NOT RECONFIRM THAT APCH LIGHTS WERE OTS. IF I HAD ASKED, THE TWR MIGHT HAVE CAUGHT THEIR MISTAKE AND TURNED ON THE CORRECT LIGHTS. THIS WAS MY BIGGEST ERROR. HOWEVER, WITH THE RWY LIGHTS IN SIGHT FROM SO FAR OUT, I DIDN'T FEEL THAT I NEEDED APCH LIGHTS ANYWAY. SOLUTIONS: 1) CREATE A BACKCOURSE APCH TO THE LONG RWY. 2) MAKE NOTE ON APCH PLATES THAT THE SHORT RWY DOES HAVE LIGHTS. 3) DESIGNATE RWY 2 LEFT AND 2 RIGHT. THIS WILL REINFORCE THE PLT'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE 2 PARALLEL RWYS. THIS INCIDENT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE DAYLIGHT, BUT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN AT NIGHT.

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.