Narrative:

When being vectored for a visual approach to mwc, my flight path took me very close an intermediate airport mke, which was in the same direction as my destination airport. I was asked by approach control if the airport was in sight (no direction/distance was given). I reported airport in sight and was cleared for the visual approach to runway 22R and instructed to contact timmerman tower. I contacted the tower and reported what I thought was my position, and started to make an approach to the airport in sight. As discovered later, it was general mitchell and not timmerman. The tower questioned my position but then asked for a report of a 2 mi final for 22R. Traffic 4 mi east of timmerman reported their position and I began looking for the traffic. At about 2 mi out from 25R at mke, I reported a 2 mi final. I was then cleared to land. Then after a few seconds, the tower said I was on final for mitchell field, not timmerman. I was given a new heading, instructed to contact approach control, and proceeded to timmerman airport without further incidence. There was no imminent traffic conflicts as far as I know. Contributing factors: 1) cleared for a visual approach and landing prior to passing the intermediate airport. 2) unfamiliarity with area. 3) similar runway alignments at both airports (ie, 22R versus 25R). 4) lack of use of VFR sectional charts for landmark orientation. 5) pilot workload and scanning for other reported traffic. 6) racine/john batton field was mistaken as mitchell field. 7) additional verification of position va navigation radios. To prevent this situation (where airports are in close proximity), the pilot and controller need to make sure the right airport is idented. The controller should give distance/direction information when asking if the airport is in sight. When a pilot reports a position which is suspect, a landing clearance should not be automatically issued. More reliance on VFR charts is needed when making visual approachs in unfamiliar territory.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT MISIDENTS ARPT MAKES APCH TO WRONG ARPT. TWR CTLR SIGHTS PROBLEM AND TURNS OVER TO TRACON AGAIN FOR PROPER ARPT APCH.

Narrative: WHEN BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO MWC, MY FLT PATH TOOK ME VERY CLOSE AN INTERMEDIATE ARPT MKE, WHICH WAS IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS MY DEST ARPT. I WAS ASKED BY APCH CTL IF THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT (NO DIRECTION/DISTANCE WAS GIVEN). I RPTED ARPT IN SIGHT AND WAS CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 22R AND INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT TIMMERMAN TWR. I CONTACTED THE TWR AND RPTED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS MY POS, AND STARTED TO MAKE AN APCH TO THE ARPT IN SIGHT. AS DISCOVERED LATER, IT WAS GENERAL MITCHELL AND NOT TIMMERMAN. THE TWR QUESTIONED MY POS BUT THEN ASKED FOR A RPT OF A 2 MI FINAL FOR 22R. TFC 4 MI E OF TIMMERMAN RPTED THEIR POS AND I BEGAN LOOKING FOR THE TFC. AT ABOUT 2 MI OUT FROM 25R AT MKE, I RPTED A 2 MI FINAL. I WAS THEN CLRED TO LAND. THEN AFTER A FEW SECONDS, THE TWR SAID I WAS ON FINAL FOR MITCHELL FIELD, NOT TIMMERMAN. I WAS GIVEN A NEW HDG, INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT APCH CTL, AND PROCEEDED TO TIMMERMAN ARPT WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENCE. THERE WAS NO IMMINENT TFC CONFLICTS AS FAR AS I KNOW. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH AND LNDG PRIOR TO PASSING THE INTERMEDIATE ARPT. 2) UNFAMILIARITY WITH AREA. 3) SIMILAR RWY ALIGNMENTS AT BOTH ARPTS (IE, 22R VERSUS 25R). 4) LACK OF USE OF VFR SECTIONAL CHARTS FOR LANDMARK ORIENTATION. 5) PLT WORKLOAD AND SCANNING FOR OTHER RPTED TFC. 6) RACINE/JOHN BATTON FIELD WAS MISTAKEN AS MITCHELL FIELD. 7) ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION OF POS VA NAV RADIOS. TO PREVENT THIS SITUATION (WHERE ARPTS ARE IN CLOSE PROX), THE PLT AND CTLR NEED TO MAKE SURE THE RIGHT ARPT IS IDENTED. THE CTLR SHOULD GIVE DISTANCE/DIRECTION INFO WHEN ASKING IF THE ARPT IS IN SIGHT. WHEN A PLT RPTS A POS WHICH IS SUSPECT, A LNDG CLRNC SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY ISSUED. MORE RELIANCE ON VFR CHARTS IS NEEDED WHEN MAKING VISUAL APCHS IN UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY.

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.