Narrative:

Landed at bfi, seattle, when sea approach control was expecting us to land at sea airport. On the morning of may/wed/93 at HX30, I filed in person with the ktn, ak, FSS 2 IFR flight plans. I was given a WX briefing pertinent to the filed routings and destinations. The flight plans were hand written, legible, on standard FAA flight plan forms, which I filled out the day prior to the flight. I know the last point on the filed routing and destination were correct (bfi). On departing ktn at approximately HX45 we were only cleared to ann VOR, our first filed fix. (Ktn FSS did not clear us to bfi or sea, only T ann VOR.) just prior to reaching ann VOR, we contacted zan and were cleared direct ann, flight plan route. Upon contacting vancouver center, we were cleared direct victoria as filed. Upon contacting ZSE we were cleared via the JAWBN5 arrival. When we were switched over to sea approach control, we reported having ATIS information which was the current ATIS information for bfi. (I was told later, during a telephone conversation with a person representing sea approach control, that sea ATIS uses the identifiers a through M and bfi ATIS used identifiers north through Z). Upon reaching alkia intersection on the JAWBN5 STAR we were assigned a left turn to approximately a 100 degree heading and later a southerly heading. Next we were asked if we had elliot bay and the airport in sight. We reported elliot bay and the airport in sight after which seattle approach cleared us by the 'bay visual, cleared for a visual approach. Report to the tower when turning final.' if sea approach stated anything after 'cleared for a visual approach, contact the tower when turning final' it was blocked by our altitude alert warning, as my copilot and myself heard no other statements and no runway assignment. My copilot quickly reviewed the bfi approach plates and reported he was unable to find an elliot bay visual approach. I turned up elliot bay which leads almost to the approach end of bfi runway 13. By now we were on final to bfi runway 13R and switched to the bfi tower frequency. Due to frequency congestion, we were waiting for an opportunity to report on final for runway 13R when the bfi tower asked if we were on frequency. We responded that we were on final for runway 13R to which the tower did not reply. At this point we asked the bfi tower to confirm if we were cleared to land. The tower confirmed our clearance to land. While taxiing to the FBO, boeing ground control gave us a phone number and requested a crew member to call sea approach control. I contacted sea approach control by phone. 15 mins after our arrival at bfi we were ready to proceed with the second leg of our trip and we requested our clearance from bfi to slc and it was waiting for us. (This was the second flight plan filed in ktn.) this would seem to indicate that ktn FSS probably made the proper entries in the computer. Both sea and bfi airports have a JAWBN5 STAR with all depicted information being the same including the name. If ATC is serious about improving safety, improving communication, and eliminating confusion on the part of pilots and controllers and eliminating this type of problem, arrs to different airports should at least have different names.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SEA APCH CTL VECTORED AN ACFT TO SEA WHEN HIS FILED DEST WAS BFI.

Narrative: LANDED AT BFI, SEATTLE, WHEN SEA APCH CTL WAS EXPECTING US TO LAND AT SEA ARPT. ON THE MORNING OF MAY/WED/93 AT HX30, I FILED IN PERSON WITH THE KTN, AK, FSS 2 IFR FLT PLANS. I WAS GIVEN A WX BRIEFING PERTINENT TO THE FILED ROUTINGS AND DESTS. THE FLT PLANS WERE HAND WRITTEN, LEGIBLE, ON STANDARD FAA FLT PLAN FORMS, WHICH I FILLED OUT THE DAY PRIOR TO THE FLT. I KNOW THE LAST POINT ON THE FILED ROUTING AND DEST WERE CORRECT (BFI). ON DEPARTING KTN AT APPROX HX45 WE WERE ONLY CLRED TO ANN VOR, OUR FIRST FILED FIX. (KTN FSS DID NOT CLR US TO BFI OR SEA, ONLY T ANN VOR.) JUST PRIOR TO REACHING ANN VOR, WE CONTACTED ZAN AND WERE CLRED DIRECT ANN, FLT PLAN RTE. UPON CONTACTING VANCOUVER CTR, WE WERE CLRED DIRECT VICTORIA AS FILED. UPON CONTACTING ZSE WE WERE CLRED VIA THE JAWBN5 ARR. WHEN WE WERE SWITCHED OVER TO SEA APCH CTL, WE RPTED HAVING ATIS INFO WHICH WAS THE CURRENT ATIS INFO FOR BFI. (I WAS TOLD LATER, DURING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH A PERSON REPRESENTING SEA APCH CTL, THAT SEA ATIS USES THE IDENTIFIERS A THROUGH M AND BFI ATIS USED IDENTIFIERS N THROUGH Z). UPON REACHING ALKIA INTXN ON THE JAWBN5 STAR WE WERE ASSIGNED A L TURN TO APPROX A 100 DEG HDG AND LATER A SOUTHERLY HDG. NEXT WE WERE ASKED IF WE HAD ELLIOT BAY AND THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE RPTED ELLIOT BAY AND THE ARPT IN SIGHT AFTER WHICH SEATTLE APCH CLRED US BY THE 'BAY VISUAL, CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH. RPT TO THE TWR WHEN TURNING FINAL.' IF SEA APCH STATED ANYTHING AFTER 'CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH, CONTACT THE TWR WHEN TURNING FINAL' IT WAS BLOCKED BY OUR ALT ALERT WARNING, AS MY COPLT AND MYSELF HEARD NO OTHER STATEMENTS AND NO RWY ASSIGNMENT. MY COPLT QUICKLY REVIEWED THE BFI APCH PLATES AND RPTED HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND AN ELLIOT BAY VISUAL APCH. I TURNED UP ELLIOT BAY WHICH LEADS ALMOST TO THE APCH END OF BFI RWY 13. BY NOW WE WERE ON FINAL TO BFI RWY 13R AND SWITCHED TO THE BFI TWR FREQ. DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION, WE WERE WAITING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO RPT ON FINAL FOR RWY 13R WHEN THE BFI TWR ASKED IF WE WERE ON FREQ. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE ON FINAL FOR RWY 13R TO WHICH THE TWR DID NOT REPLY. AT THIS POINT WE ASKED THE BFI TWR TO CONFIRM IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. THE TWR CONFIRMED OUR CLRNC TO LAND. WHILE TAXIING TO THE FBO, BOEING GND CTL GAVE US A PHONE NUMBER AND REQUESTED A CREW MEMBER TO CALL SEA APCH CTL. I CONTACTED SEA APCH CTL BY PHONE. 15 MINS AFTER OUR ARR AT BFI WE WERE READY TO PROCEED WITH THE SECOND LEG OF OUR TRIP AND WE REQUESTED OUR CLRNC FROM BFI TO SLC AND IT WAS WAITING FOR US. (THIS WAS THE SECOND FLT PLAN FILED IN KTN.) THIS WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT KTN FSS PROBABLY MADE THE PROPER ENTRIES IN THE COMPUTER. BOTH SEA AND BFI ARPTS HAVE A JAWBN5 STAR WITH ALL DEPICTED INFO BEING THE SAME INCLUDING THE NAME. IF ATC IS SERIOUS ABOUT IMPROVING SAFETY, IMPROVING COM, AND ELIMINATING CONFUSION ON THE PART OF PLTS AND CTLRS AND ELIMINATING THIS TYPE OF PROB, ARRS TO DIFFERENT ARPTS SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES.

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.