Narrative:

I was PNF. En route to fra, a descent from FL370 was issued by lon control and was initiated near the biggen VOR. Further clrncs to descend were given until approximately FL180, when we were handed off to brussels control. Brussels requested we expedite to FL160. At this time, they began calling us by a different call sign. We thought this was for their clarification. We commented among ourselves that we were getting down very early for fra. After receiving clrncs through FL120 to FL100, we were cleared to the bruno (bun) VOR which we could not locate on the map. We asked ATC for assistance and vectors were issued. At about this time, the so located bun on the chart, and we obtained a 110.6 frequency. I was looking at the fra 10-1 chart. Out of about 8000 ft, the so became busy with attempts to get ATIS and contact the company and she had to verify that the #2 communications were working and repeatedly attempted to use a faulty ACARS to contact dispatch. Brussels ATC was extremely difficult to understand. We had to ask them to repeat clrncs. We were advised to expect a runway 25L approach, and the captain briefed a runway 25L approach to fra. ILS, ADF, and DME frequencys for fra runway 25L were set. We were changed over to approach and cleared down to 8000 ft and then 4000 ft. After passing bun VOR, a vector for runway 25L was given. Thinking we were getting close to fra and that we were talking with fra approach (due to our radio calls identing them as 'fra approach'), we continued to attempt positive identify for the runway 25L approach, as well as trying to obtain ATIS and contact the company. The runway 25L ILS at fra (110.7) was selected, but no signal received. We had good ground contact, but could not see the airport. It was hazy. As we descended, the haze seemed to increase. Approach told us to fly a heading of 220 degrees to intercept the localizer. The ILS was flagged. The autoplt was off. I called the controller and said, 'fra approach control. This is a different call sign, not receiving the ILS for runway 25L.' the controller responded by informing us that 'the frequency is now 110.3, tune your radio to 110.3 now.' we switched to 110.3 and the ILS came in. As we were going through the localizer, we were given a heading of 270 degrees to intercept. We intercepted the localizer and then saw the runway. We were told to contact tower 118.6. The captain said, 'there is something wrong, this isn't fra.' the captain told me to ask the tower if they had us in sight. I called, 'fra tower. This is different call sign, do you have a visual contact on us?' the tower responded with, 'affirmative. You are cleared to land. Different call sign.' the captain told me to call them again. I said, 'fra tower, different call sign, do you have visual contact with us?' they again told us that they had us in sight and we were cleared to land. The captain stated, 'this is not the fra airport. I'm going around.' I said, 'this is frankfurt, there is runway 25L and there's the terminal on the right.' I made this statement because I had addressed the tower as 'frankfurt tower' and there was no contradiction, and because I saw runway 25L painted on the runway. The so responded with, 'it looks good,' meaning the confign for the landing. We landed without incident. Although I have used quotes above, I am not certain as to the exact phraseology, but the quotes do reflect the substance of what was said, to the best of my recollection. Aircraft type: DC10-40. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this first officer was flying a DC10-40 that was scheduled to land in frankfurt, germany. However, due to a number of events, the flight crew actually landed in brussels belgium. The first officer said that he was unable to save the cvr since the company would not permit removing the tape. The flight crew was also not able to save a tape of a conversation between a london, england, ARTCC supervisor and a shannon, ireland, controller concerning a change in call sign for the reporter's flight. However, london ARTCC has apparently written a letter of apology to the company according to the reporter. The first officer said that the only clear text statement regarding landing at brussels came from the ground controller after they had landed whenhe asked 'why have you landed here? Was this your alternate?' the flight crew has been fired by the company and they are preparing for the grievance hearing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WRONG ARPT LNDG -- THIS FLC LANDED AT EBRU INSTEAD OF THEIR DEST OF EDFF.

Narrative: I WAS PNF. ENRTE TO FRA, A DSCNT FROM FL370 WAS ISSUED BY LON CTL AND WAS INITIATED NEAR THE BIGGEN VOR. FURTHER CLRNCS TO DSND WERE GIVEN UNTIL APPROX FL180, WHEN WE WERE HANDED OFF TO BRUSSELS CTL. BRUSSELS REQUESTED WE EXPEDITE TO FL160. AT THIS TIME, THEY BEGAN CALLING US BY A DIFFERENT CALL SIGN. WE THOUGHT THIS WAS FOR THEIR CLARIFICATION. WE COMMENTED AMONG OURSELVES THAT WE WERE GETTING DOWN VERY EARLY FOR FRA. AFTER RECEIVING CLRNCS THROUGH FL120 TO FL100, WE WERE CLRED TO THE BRUNO (BUN) VOR WHICH WE COULD NOT LOCATE ON THE MAP. WE ASKED ATC FOR ASSISTANCE AND VECTORS WERE ISSUED. AT ABOUT THIS TIME, THE SO LOCATED BUN ON THE CHART, AND WE OBTAINED A 110.6 FREQ. I WAS LOOKING AT THE FRA 10-1 CHART. OUT OF ABOUT 8000 FT, THE SO BECAME BUSY WITH ATTEMPTS TO GET ATIS AND CONTACT THE COMPANY AND SHE HAD TO VERIFY THAT THE #2 COMS WERE WORKING AND REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO USE A FAULTY ACARS TO CONTACT DISPATCH. BRUSSELS ATC WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. WE HAD TO ASK THEM TO REPEAT CLRNCS. WE WERE ADVISED TO EXPECT A RWY 25L APCH, AND THE CAPT BRIEFED A RWY 25L APCH TO FRA. ILS, ADF, AND DME FREQS FOR FRA RWY 25L WERE SET. WE WERE CHANGED OVER TO APCH AND CLRED DOWN TO 8000 FT AND THEN 4000 FT. AFTER PASSING BUN VOR, A VECTOR FOR RWY 25L WAS GIVEN. THINKING WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO FRA AND THAT WE WERE TALKING WITH FRA APCH (DUE TO OUR RADIO CALLS IDENTING THEM AS 'FRA APCH'), WE CONTINUED TO ATTEMPT POSITIVE IDENT FOR THE RWY 25L APCH, AS WELL AS TRYING TO OBTAIN ATIS AND CONTACT THE COMPANY. THE RWY 25L ILS AT FRA (110.7) WAS SELECTED, BUT NO SIGNAL RECEIVED. WE HAD GOOD GND CONTACT, BUT COULD NOT SEE THE ARPT. IT WAS HAZY. AS WE DSNDED, THE HAZE SEEMED TO INCREASE. APCH TOLD US TO FLY A HDG OF 220 DEGS TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. THE ILS WAS FLAGGED. THE AUTOPLT WAS OFF. I CALLED THE CTLR AND SAID, 'FRA APCH CTL. THIS IS A DIFFERENT CALL SIGN, NOT RECEIVING THE ILS FOR RWY 25L.' THE CTLR RESPONDED BY INFORMING US THAT 'THE FREQ IS NOW 110.3, TUNE YOUR RADIO TO 110.3 NOW.' WE SWITCHED TO 110.3 AND THE ILS CAME IN. AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE LOC, WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 270 DEGS TO INTERCEPT. WE INTERCEPTED THE LOC AND THEN SAW THE RWY. WE WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR 118.6. THE CAPT SAID, 'THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG, THIS ISN'T FRA.' THE CAPT TOLD ME TO ASK THE TWR IF THEY HAD US IN SIGHT. I CALLED, 'FRA TWR. THIS IS DIFFERENT CALL SIGN, DO YOU HAVE A VISUAL CONTACT ON US?' THE TWR RESPONDED WITH, 'AFFIRMATIVE. YOU ARE CLRED TO LAND. DIFFERENT CALL SIGN.' THE CAPT TOLD ME TO CALL THEM AGAIN. I SAID, 'FRA TWR, DIFFERENT CALL SIGN, DO YOU HAVE VISUAL CONTACT WITH US?' THEY AGAIN TOLD US THAT THEY HAD US IN SIGHT AND WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. THE CAPT STATED, 'THIS IS NOT THE FRA ARPT. I'M GOING AROUND.' I SAID, 'THIS IS FRANKFURT, THERE IS RWY 25L AND THERE'S THE TERMINAL ON THE R.' I MADE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE I HAD ADDRESSED THE TWR AS 'FRANKFURT TWR' AND THERE WAS NO CONTRADICTION, AND BECAUSE I SAW RWY 25L PAINTED ON THE RWY. THE SO RESPONDED WITH, 'IT LOOKS GOOD,' MEANING THE CONFIGN FOR THE LNDG. WE LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ALTHOUGH I HAVE USED QUOTES ABOVE, I AM NOT CERTAIN AS TO THE EXACT PHRASEOLOGY, BUT THE QUOTES DO REFLECT THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT WAS SAID, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. ACFT TYPE: DC10-40. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS FO WAS FLYING A DC10-40 THAT WAS SCHEDULED TO LAND IN FRANKFURT, GERMANY. HOWEVER, DUE TO A NUMBER OF EVENTS, THE FLC ACTUALLY LANDED IN BRUSSELS BELGIUM. THE FO SAID THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO SAVE THE CVR SINCE THE COMPANY WOULD NOT PERMIT REMOVING THE TAPE. THE FLC WAS ALSO NOT ABLE TO SAVE A TAPE OF A CONVERSATION BTWN A LONDON, ENGLAND, ARTCC SUPVR AND A SHANNON, IRELAND, CTLR CONCERNING A CHANGE IN CALL SIGN FOR THE RPTR'S FLT. HOWEVER, LONDON ARTCC HAS APPARENTLY WRITTEN A LETTER OF APOLOGY TO THE COMPANY ACCORDING TO THE RPTR. THE FO SAID THAT THE ONLY CLR TEXT STATEMENT REGARDING LNDG AT BRUSSELS CAME FROM THE GND CTLR AFTER THEY HAD LANDED WHENHE ASKED 'WHY HAVE YOU LANDED HERE? WAS THIS YOUR ALTERNATE?' THE FLC HAS BEEN FIRED BY THE COMPANY AND THEY ARE PREPARING FOR THE GRIEVANCE HEARING.

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.