Near as I can tell HIRL could not have been on, they were not following another aicraft to land, and the runway and taxiway lighting must've been sufficiently l

Near as I can tell HIRL could not have been on, they were not following another aicraft to land, and the runway and taxiway lighting must've been sufficiently low that the taxi lights (low intensity version of a landing light) on the queued up airplanes on the taxiway, made it look like the taxiway was the runway. Pilot fatigue, and experience at this airport also are questions. http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SFO/IAP/ILS+RWY+28R+(CAT+II+-+III)/pdf http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/SFO/IAP/ILS+RWY+28R... All runways have high intensity runway lighting (HIRL) and 28R has touchdown zone and centerline lighting (TDZ/CL). Runway lights are white, taxiway lights are blue. If you see these elements, there's no way to get confused. So my assumption is the pilots, neither of them, saw this distinction. HIRL is typically off for visual landings even at night. That's questionable because night conditions are reduced visibility situations and in many other countries night flying is considered as operating under instrument rules, but not in the U.S. You do not need instrument rated aircraft or pilot certification. For a long time I've though low intensity HIRL should be enabled briefy in the case of visual night landings, where an aircraft is not following behind another, at the time "runway in sight" verbal verification happens between ATC and pilot.