Narrative:

Upon contact with okc approach in day VFR conditions; we were subsequently vectored off the STAR for a visual approach to 17L at kokc. We had briefed a visual approach to this runway; backed up with the ILS. I remember seeing kokc on the left as we descended. Approach assigned us a heading of 340 and a descent to 4000 ft MSL and I verbalized that this would put us west of the field for a right base to 17L. Subsequently approach asked us if we had the field in sight; and we agreed. We were cleared the visual. I called for flaps and gear in sequence. The field we saw was off our right wing. We turned about an eight mile right base off the fix page for kokc runway 17L; with landing gear and flaps 15; to finish configuring on final. At 3000 ft MSL on base; approach asked us if we were executing the visual to 17L at kokc. We replied affirmative; and then approach climbed us to 4000 ft MSL and subsequently vectored us north. Approach told us we were headed for tinker AFB (visually about seven or eight NM at our two to three o'clock). We recognized our mistake; and coordinated with approach for vectors to the localizer for 17L at kokc. We should have turned a left base to 17L instead of a right turn. Once we were positively sure of our position relative to kokc; we coordinated for the visual to 17L and landed uneventfully at kokc.upon discussion with the other pilot after the flight; we both recalled from training the technique to fly to the final approach fix using the FMC for the intended visual approach. Given the conditions of an older model aircraft without the plan view that helps distinguish between airports; day VFR; multiple large airports in the local vicinity; an approach from the south that arrived near two airports; and the expectation bias of seeing an airport and reacting to a perceived location while using just the fix page; the technique to fly to the final approach fix before committing to a pure visual approach is a much better planning tool to maintain situational awareness. I will certainly employ this technique immediately; as well as brief the threat of multiple airports in the vicinity. Also I will verbalize our position as we fly the approach; to give the other pilot multiple chances to verify our position. The kokc 10-7 page does warn about confusion between multiple airports in the vicinity; yet I did not do enough to guard against this threat. I will employ better planning via a more detailed briefing and more attention to approach waypoints to reduce this threat.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The crew started a turn towards TIK while cleared for a visual approach to OKC Runway 17L.

Narrative: Upon contact with OKC Approach in day VFR conditions; we were subsequently vectored off the STAR for a visual approach to 17L at KOKC. We had briefed a visual approach to this runway; backed up with the ILS. I remember seeing KOKC on the left as we descended. Approach assigned us a heading of 340 and a descent to 4000 FT MSL and I verbalized that this would put us west of the field for a right base to 17L. Subsequently Approach asked us if we had the field in sight; and we agreed. We were cleared the visual. I called for flaps and gear in sequence. The field we saw was off our right wing. We turned about an eight mile right base off the fix page for KOKC Runway 17L; with landing gear and Flaps 15; to finish configuring on final. At 3000 FT MSL on base; Approach asked us if we were executing the visual to 17L at KOKC. We replied affirmative; and then Approach climbed us to 4000 FT MSL and subsequently vectored us north. Approach told us we were headed for Tinker AFB (visually about seven or eight NM at our two to three o'clock). We recognized our mistake; and coordinated with Approach for vectors to the Localizer for 17L at KOKC. We should have turned a left base to 17L instead of a right turn. Once we were positively sure of our position relative to KOKC; we coordinated for the visual to 17L and landed uneventfully at KOKC.Upon discussion with the other Pilot after the flight; we both recalled from training the technique to fly to the final approach fix using the FMC for the intended visual approach. Given the conditions of an older model aircraft without the plan view that helps distinguish between airports; day VFR; multiple large airports in the local vicinity; an approach from the south that arrived near two airports; and the expectation bias of seeing an airport and reacting to a perceived location while using just the FIX page; the technique to fly to the final approach fix before committing to a pure visual approach is a much better planning tool to maintain situational awareness. I will certainly employ this technique immediately; as well as brief the threat of multiple airports in the vicinity. Also I will verbalize our position as we fly the approach; to give the other Pilot multiple chances to verify our position. The KOKC 10-7 page does warn about confusion between multiple airports in the vicinity; yet I did not do enough to guard against this threat. I will employ better planning via a more detailed briefing and more attention to approach waypoints to reduce this threat.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.