Originally Posted by
DaveReidUK
I must have missed that part. Where and when did they say that?
They didn't.
The quote from NTSB is this:
...both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
Maybe they misunderstood the ATIS and NOTAM and thought the approach lighting was out for 28R. I've been into Sydney many times after curfew when the closed runway 34R is lit up like a bonfire while the in use runway 34L has a displaced threshold, no approach lights, temporary PAPIs hiding behind taxiway signs and a couple of vehicles on the runway doing an inspection. If you did an approach on what looked like a runway you'd balls it up (and it has been done), instead you are expected to make an approach on to a mess of lights that don't look much like a runway. Granted, Sydney is not SFO, but perhaps these guys had talked themselves into expecting to see 28R with no approach lights next to a 28L with approach lights. Who knows? I don't know. What I do know is that they didn't set out to purposefully land on a taxiway, something screwed up their expectations.