Narrative:

I had just taken over all radar positions and was moderately busy. I noticed aircraft X had descended from his assigned altitude of 3000 feet to 2500 feet; which is the MVA. Since he was landing at gmu; I asked if he had the airport in sight. He said he did; so I cleared him for the visual approach and switched him to gmu tower. The controller in charge (controller in charge) was next to me working flight data and noticed the aircraft was descending to land on the closed runway at gyh. The controller in charge notified gmu who said they were not talking to aircraft. I notified gyh who had a touch-and-go aircraft on final to ry 5; which converges with the closed north-south runway. The aircraft was about 200 feet AGL when gmu tower got radio contact with the aircraft to issue a climb. This is not a new problem. A large air carrier aircraft almost landed at gmu by mistake last year. Another large air carrier aircraft landed at gyh rather than gsp about 15 years ago. In the vast majority of cases; the aircraft is alerted well before it becomes critical. This is not unique to gsp approach. If there is a national sme; we should ask for advice. If there is not a sme or national committee on this; there needs to be one. GPS to the final approach fix seems [to] decrease the frequency of occurrence. Charted visual approaches with GPS fixes to the three airports (gmu; gyh; gsp) might be a game changer. We should compile the best practices locally and nationally. Should 'do not confuse...' be a NOTAM at the 3 airports? Can 'do not confuse with...' be on the approach plates? Do we need to have a statement on the ATIS? If we need it on the ATIS; gyh needs an ATIS. Gyh needs a d-brite radar display. That would add another set of eyes. Many years ago there was a 'do not confuse...' statement on the air carrier and air taxi release paper work from dispatch. Is it still on the paper work for all the airlines? This is also a problem for ZTL area 2 when gsp closes overnight. What training and best practices do they have? Are there better procedures we can use for VFR aircraft? The closed runway is used as a test track and for truck driver training. How can it be made less tempting to land on? Is there a way to put blinking lights on the X's that would make them more visible? Should different airports have different color rotating beacons?the longer you work at gsp the more cautious you get with airport identification; but you don't always have time to verify with every aircraft. So we need the pilots to understand airport identification could be a problem before their engine starts.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An aircraft was cleared for a Visual Approach. The pilot made the approach to the wrong airport to a closed runway. Pilot narrative states the airport was closed however the airport was not closed only the runway they made the approach to.

Narrative: I had just taken over all radar positions and was moderately busy. I noticed Aircraft X had descended from his assigned altitude of 3000 feet to 2500 feet; which is the MVA. Since he was landing at GMU; I asked if he had the airport in sight. He said he did; so I cleared him for the Visual Approach and switched him to GMU Tower. The CIC (Controller in Charge) was next to me working flight data and noticed the aircraft was descending to land on the closed runway at GYH. The CIC notified GMU who said they were not talking to aircraft. I notified GYH who had a touch-and-go aircraft on final to RY 5; which converges with the closed north-south runway. The aircraft was about 200 feet AGL when GMU tower got radio contact with the aircraft to issue a climb. This is not a new problem. A large air carrier aircraft almost landed at GMU by mistake last year. Another large air carrier aircraft landed at GYH rather than GSP about 15 years ago. In the vast majority of cases; the aircraft is alerted well before it becomes critical. This is not unique to GSP approach. If there is a national SME; we should ask for advice. If there is not a SME or national committee on this; there needs to be one. GPS to the final approach fix seems [to] decrease the frequency of occurrence. Charted visual approaches with GPS fixes to the three airports (GMU; GYH; GSP) might be a game changer. We should compile the Best Practices locally and nationally. Should 'Do not confuse...' be a NOTAM at the 3 airports? Can 'Do not confuse with...' be on the approach plates? Do we need to have a statement on the ATIS? If we need it on the ATIS; GYH needs an ATIS. GYH needs a D-brite Radar display. That would add another set of eyes. Many years ago there was a 'Do not confuse...' statement on the air carrier and air taxi release paper work from dispatch. Is it still on the paper work for all the airlines? This is also a problem for ZTL Area 2 when GSP closes overnight. What training and best practices do they have? Are there better procedures we can use for VFR aircraft? The closed runway is used as a test track and for truck driver training. How can it be made less tempting to land on? Is there a way to put blinking lights on the X's that would make them more visible? Should different airports have different color rotating beacons?The longer you work at GSP the more cautious you get with airport identification; but you don't always have time to verify with every aircraft. So we need the pilots to understand airport identification could be a problem before their engine starts.

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.