Hello Chris Scott. It is very hard to have a fair intellectual battle with an unarmed man but you leave me little choice. The entire post made by seen the box is irrelevant, unsubstantiated personal opinion or just plain wrong. Sorry you wish to align yourself with such inept logic.
Seen the box seems to have so misread my post that he writes that I don't accept that errors happen, or that breaking the error chain "will" (note not "may) break it despite my clearly describing errors, error chains and how to break them. This is the sloppiest and most negligent answer I've seen for a while here - pure unwarranted assumption, or worse.
His second para is also devoid of logic and contains mere surmise; "Had" all sorts of random things happened other results "Might" have occurred. This is an "argument" akin to predicting the football pools by reading tea leaves. The correct position, I say again, is that "had they correctly read the NOTAM" they would have had reason to question an incorrect clearance if one was ever given. If so they apparently did not question it. Further if no incorrect landing runway was given by ATC then ipso facto they just landed on the wrong one. Either way ATC can have had no significant part in determining which runway was landed on unless incorrect readbacks were made. The result was determined by an assumption of the duty runway based, probably, on habit, experience, call it what you will unaffected by NOTAM or ATC. No amount of better quality ATC will remedy that.
His third para is a pastiche of irrationality and misinformation (my logic suggests nothing of what he infers) presented to look as though I had said it, not he. That is dishonest.
To continue by saying that if anyone is arrogant enough....and I emphasise "anyone"- then he would not fly with me is a non sequitur almost beyond belief. Why would he not fly with me if anyone else was arrogant? Or is he just ungrammatically accusing me of some imagined arrogance in taking this stance that he has invented? Because I most certainly did not take or present it. That is not only dishonest, it is a pathetic and weak attempt at slander and merely serves to further discredit his totally worthless "logic". It also describes all too well his staggering arrogance and unprofessionalism at making unwarranted and purely invented assumptions against someone he does not know. I am not impressed.
I have no quarrel with what the count said, it seems almost the same as my position and I agree with it, though I'd like to pay more attention to whys and wherefores of the fundamental error and less to presenting "extenuating circumstances" that played no part in leading to it at all, and are therefore not extenuating circumstances.
If someone is so certain that 07L is the duty runway and not 07R yet still lands on it despite being told 07R the problem is hardly with ATC - is it???
If he believed it was 07R as NOTAMed but was unexpectedly told 07L he would query the deviation from NOTAM rather than just land as previously assumed wouldn't he? How can ATC or ATIS/lack of be responsible for that?
The question is surely how such well trained pilots bamboozle themselves into missing critical NOTAMs relating to fundamental gotchas at well known trap-locations, not mere detail of whether the trap location had an ATIS or spoke the Queen's English. Its much deeper and more fundamental than that. Sure, the detail needs sorting out but it isn't the elephant in the room. Let's address that first?