Narrative:

We originated charter flight with aircraft from msp to las. This leg departed msp and arrived in las. All proceeded routinely. During this leg the auw approach was taken from the ship's library (all approach plates and maps are kept on the aircraft) and studied at length. Charter flight departed las. Flight proceeded routinely. ZMP (124.4) released us for a visibility approach at approximately 10 mi from auw VOR. The airport was in sight. However, inasmuch as there was no control tower on the airport, we flew to the aforesaid VOR and flew the 7 DME arc approach for runway 30. The approach and landing were routine. However, upon taxiing in the passenger informed us that this was the wrong airport. We told them that we were instructed to bring them to wausau, wi, which was the name on the sign above the terminal. The passenger protested that this was not the airport from which they departed!! Our approach plates are categorized alphabetically by state. Great effort was made thumbing through the pages to find another approach plate for wausau, wi under any reasonable category (central wisconsin airport, etc). None could be found! Finally, after going through the approach plates 1 page at a time, we found the correct approach plate, listed alphabetically under mosinee!!! This is the first any crew member had heard of the town of mosinee, wi, the destination to which the passenger wanted to go! We then concluded the cwa = mosinee, wi and auw = wausau, wi. Airport manager told us that we were the third aircraft that day to land at auw instead of cwa, and that this condition happens 'all the time.' neither airport has a control tower, and they were in hopes that this incident will help them get a control tower in one of the airports that serves wausau, wi. At this point in time we, the flight crew, have been placed on administrative leave pending a final determination of what to do with us. Our jobs are hanging in the balance! Some observations are in order: 1) a problem of confusion does exist in wausau, wi, and our experience will continue to be repeated unless concrete steps are taken to remedy the problem. The airport manager's comment that 'this happens all the time' should make this very clear. 2) in the short term, all flight crews should be fully informed of where they are being sent. Flight crews should be informed that cwa = mosinee! It is patently unfair to place flight crews in this kind of position. We feel that our dispatcher should have informed us specifically of where the passenger wanted to go! Only after we had landed in wausau, did we find the word mosinee. It was the first that any of us had heard of it. 3) had we had any hint of what the specific destination was mosinee, this incident would have never occurred. As we are experienced in our craft and take great pride over many yrs in doing a good and professional job, to send us on an errand reminiscent of the keystone kops trying to find a place to land makes reason stare! Our professional pride cries out at such. 4) also, in the short term, aircraft controllers should alert air crews to the obvious problem, and help keep aircraft from making the common mistake of landing at wausau municipal when they really want to go to mosinee. This could easily be done in their instructions to the aircraft by clearing them for an approach to a certain runway. This would determine quite specifically what their destination is. Somewhere in their conversation, mosinee should be mentioned. 5) in the long term, mosinee should be renamed and listed alphabetically under wausau so that flight crews at least have a chance to pick which of the 2 airports they wish to land. As it now stands, no choice is given. Callback conversation with reporter acn 174204 revealed the following: reporter states he received a 30 day suspension from company. He has just received a 10 day letter from FAA. He has prepared a response in which he will indicate that the flight plan from dispatch was a major part of problem. Flight plans are normally filed with airport as destination, not a NAVAID. It was a natural assumption therefore that flight plan 'fgt to auw. (End)' meant wausau airport, not the VOR. They could not land at a NAVAID!! No mention of mosinee was ever given. Tour group had departed wausau; the flight crew was returning them to wausau. Company has taken steps to clarify and standardize all flight plans in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WITH POOR DISPATCH INFORMATION MAKES VISUAL APCH AND LNDG AT WRONG ARPT.

Narrative: WE ORIGINATED CHARTER FLT WITH ACFT FROM MSP TO LAS. THIS LEG DEPARTED MSP AND ARRIVED IN LAS. ALL PROCEEDED ROUTINELY. DURING THIS LEG THE AUW APCH WAS TAKEN FROM THE SHIP'S LIBRARY (ALL APCH PLATES AND MAPS ARE KEPT ON THE ACFT) AND STUDIED AT LENGTH. CHARTER FLT DEPARTED LAS. FLT PROCEEDED ROUTINELY. ZMP (124.4) RELEASED US FOR A VIS APCH AT APPROX 10 MI FROM AUW VOR. THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT. HOWEVER, INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO CTL TWR ON THE ARPT, WE FLEW TO THE AFORESAID VOR AND FLEW THE 7 DME ARC APCH FOR RWY 30. THE APCH AND LNDG WERE ROUTINE. HOWEVER, UPON TAXIING IN THE PAX INFORMED US THAT THIS WAS THE WRONG ARPT. WE TOLD THEM THAT WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO BRING THEM TO WAUSAU, WI, WHICH WAS THE NAME ON THE SIGN ABOVE THE TERMINAL. THE PAX PROTESTED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE ARPT FROM WHICH THEY DEPARTED!! OUR APCH PLATES ARE CATEGORIZED ALPHABETICALLY BY STATE. GREAT EFFORT WAS MADE THUMBING THROUGH THE PAGES TO FIND ANOTHER APCH PLATE FOR WAUSAU, WI UNDER ANY REASONABLE CATEGORY (CENTRAL WISCONSIN ARPT, ETC). NONE COULD BE FOUND! FINALLY, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE APCH PLATES 1 PAGE AT A TIME, WE FOUND THE CORRECT APCH PLATE, LISTED ALPHABETICALLY UNDER MOSINEE!!! THIS IS THE FIRST ANY CREW MEMBER HAD HEARD OF THE TOWN OF MOSINEE, WI, THE DEST TO WHICH THE PAX WANTED TO GO! WE THEN CONCLUDED THE CWA = MOSINEE, WI AND AUW = WAUSAU, WI. ARPT MGR TOLD US THAT WE WERE THE THIRD ACFT THAT DAY TO LAND AT AUW INSTEAD OF CWA, AND THAT THIS CONDITION HAPPENS 'ALL THE TIME.' NEITHER ARPT HAS A CTL TWR, AND THEY WERE IN HOPES THAT THIS INCIDENT WILL HELP THEM GET A CTL TWR IN ONE OF THE ARPTS THAT SERVES WAUSAU, WI. AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE, THE FLT CREW, HAVE BEEN PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE PENDING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT TO DO WITH US. OUR JOBS ARE HANGING IN THE BALANCE! SOME OBSERVATIONS ARE IN ORDER: 1) A PROB OF CONFUSION DOES EXIST IN WAUSAU, WI, AND OUR EXPERIENCE WILL CONTINUE TO BE REPEATED UNLESS CONCRETE STEPS ARE TAKEN TO REMEDY THE PROB. THE ARPT MGR'S COMMENT THAT 'THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME' SHOULD MAKE THIS VERY CLR. 2) IN THE SHORT TERM, ALL FLT CREWS SHOULD BE FULLY INFORMED OF WHERE THEY ARE BEING SENT. FLT CREWS SHOULD BE INFORMED THAT CWA = MOSINEE! IT IS PATENTLY UNFAIR TO PLACE FLT CREWS IN THIS KIND OF POS. WE FEEL THAT OUR DISPATCHER SHOULD HAVE INFORMED US SPECIFICALLY OF WHERE THE PAX WANTED TO GO! ONLY AFTER WE HAD LANDED IN WAUSAU, DID WE FIND THE WORD MOSINEE. IT WAS THE FIRST THAT ANY OF US HAD HEARD OF IT. 3) HAD WE HAD ANY HINT OF WHAT THE SPECIFIC DEST WAS MOSINEE, THIS INCIDENT WOULD HAVE NEVER OCCURRED. AS WE ARE EXPERIENCED IN OUR CRAFT AND TAKE GREAT PRIDE OVER MANY YRS IN DOING A GOOD AND PROFESSIONAL JOB, TO SEND US ON AN ERRAND REMINISCENT OF THE KEYSTONE KOPS TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO LAND MAKES REASON STARE! OUR PROFESSIONAL PRIDE CRIES OUT AT SUCH. 4) ALSO, IN THE SHORT TERM, ACFT CTLRS SHOULD ALERT AIR CREWS TO THE OBVIOUS PROB, AND HELP KEEP ACFT FROM MAKING THE COMMON MISTAKE OF LNDG AT WAUSAU MUNI WHEN THEY REALLY WANT TO GO TO MOSINEE. THIS COULD EASILY BE DONE IN THEIR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE ACFT BY CLRING THEM FOR AN APCH TO A CERTAIN RWY. THIS WOULD DETERMINE QUITE SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEIR DEST IS. SOMEWHERE IN THEIR CONVERSATION, MOSINEE SHOULD BE MENTIONED. 5) IN THE LONG TERM, MOSINEE SHOULD BE RENAMED AND LISTED ALPHABETICALLY UNDER WAUSAU SO THAT FLT CREWS AT LEAST HAVE A CHANCE TO PICK WHICH OF THE 2 ARPTS THEY WISH TO LAND. AS IT NOW STANDS, NO CHOICE IS GIVEN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 174204 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES HE RECEIVED A 30 DAY SUSPENSION FROM COMPANY. HE HAS JUST RECEIVED A 10 DAY LETTER FROM FAA. HE HAS PREPARED A RESPONSE IN WHICH HE WILL INDICATE THAT THE FLT PLAN FROM DISPATCH WAS A MAJOR PART OF PROB. FLT PLANS ARE NORMALLY FILED WITH ARPT AS DEST, NOT A NAVAID. IT WAS A NATURAL ASSUMPTION THEREFORE THAT FLT PLAN 'FGT TO AUW. (END)' MEANT WAUSAU ARPT, NOT THE VOR. THEY COULD NOT LAND AT A NAVAID!! NO MENTION OF MOSINEE WAS EVER GIVEN. TOUR GROUP HAD DEPARTED WAUSAU; THE FLT CREW WAS RETURNING THEM TO WAUSAU. COMPANY HAS TAKEN STEPS TO CLARIFY AND STANDARDIZE ALL FLT PLANS IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.