Originally Posted by
PukinDog
The NOTAMS re the closure of 28L and 28Ls Approach Light System were both published. AC OPs Specs would dictate they were disseminated to the crew.
The ATIS received by the crew before the approach also notified them that 28L was closed and the Approach Light System for 28L was out of service. Company SOPs would dictate this be reviewed by the crew prior to the approach and ATC would expect acknowledgment it had been received.
The publications/Airport Diagram the crew had on hand showed the parallel runways with Approach Light Systems installed on each, and details or each installation plus runway lighting and PAPI. They also show Taxiway C running parallel to 28R.
The crew told the investigators that they thought 28L was 28R. That is admitting they didn't either read the NOTAMs or listen to the ATIS, or means they did but never talked about it/ignored what would could be an operational concern (runway closure).
This one got me thinking. Unlikely, but assume they'd made a mistake and misheard the ATIS that 28L was closed and 28R approach lighting was out. (I assume 'approach lighting' means the stuff sticking out into the bay). Under this scenario you'd expect them to do exactly what they did because they'd be lining up on the tarmac lights to the right of the working approach set. Of course, this immediately begs the question of why the approach lighting would be set up in this configuration.