Narrative:

After receiving the ATIS for cae, we discussed the use of a runway with an operating GS was runway 11 was OTS. The controller let us use runway 29. As we approached from the northeast, the controller asked us if we saw the airport. We both confirmed the beacon, and the controller cleared us for a visual and cleared us to land at the same time. Our arrival from the northeast made the owens airport appear to look like cae due to its proximity. As we got closer and entered a modified downwind/base, the controller asked if we were going to land on runway 29. I responded yes, as we went base to final, I noticed that the localizer was not on. I should have asked the controller to turn it on since we needed the GS anyway. As we started the final approach, and were configured, we noticed that the runway was runway 31 and not runway 29. As we realized that this was the wrong airport, we told ATC that we were going around. We took vectors back around to runway 11 and landed without incident. Some of the contributing factors to our lining up wrong were: owens airport's close proximity to columbia. The similar runway layout. Our unfamiliarity with the area. Being night VFR. We did have the FMS set up, but due to the close proximity of the airports, it looked like we were on the extended centerline for runway 29. It seemed the controller knew we were not lining up properly, and a word of caution about the other airport would have been helpful. Also, if I had requested for the localizer to be switched on, we would have caught it sooner. There are several ways to prevent this in the future. 1) never accept a visual approach unless you are on final for the runway of intended landing. (As our awkward arrival made it seem to be columbia when in fact it wasn't.) 2) always request the navaids be on even in VFR conditions. 3) having the controllers warn about special problems like this when it doesn't look as if the aircraft is lined up properly. (I was told this happens a lot at columbia.) 4) putting runway layouts on the commercial chart plates of airports within 5 mi of the actual airport along with a caution if they are similar. In conclusion, we exercised good judgement when we realized that we were on approach for the wrong runway. In the future, a less experienced pilot may continue to land and that could be a serious safety concern.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: D328 FLC MAKE APCH TO WRONG ARPT.

Narrative: AFTER RECEIVING THE ATIS FOR CAE, WE DISCUSSED THE USE OF A RWY WITH AN OPERATING GS WAS RWY 11 WAS OTS. THE CTLR LET US USE RWY 29. AS WE APCHED FROM THE NE, THE CTLR ASKED US IF WE SAW THE ARPT. WE BOTH CONFIRMED THE BEACON, AND THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL AND CLRED US TO LAND AT THE SAME TIME. OUR ARR FROM THE NE MADE THE OWENS ARPT APPEAR TO LOOK LIKE CAE DUE TO ITS PROX. AS WE GOT CLOSER AND ENTERED A MODIFIED DOWNWIND/BASE, THE CTLR ASKED IF WE WERE GOING TO LAND ON RWY 29. I RESPONDED YES, AS WE WENT BASE TO FINAL, I NOTICED THAT THE LOC WAS NOT ON. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE CTLR TO TURN IT ON SINCE WE NEEDED THE GS ANYWAY. AS WE STARTED THE FINAL APCH, AND WERE CONFIGURED, WE NOTICED THAT THE RWY WAS RWY 31 AND NOT RWY 29. AS WE REALIZED THAT THIS WAS THE WRONG ARPT, WE TOLD ATC THAT WE WERE GOING AROUND. WE TOOK VECTORS BACK AROUND TO RWY 11 AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. SOME OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO OUR LINING UP WRONG WERE: OWENS ARPT'S CLOSE PROX TO COLUMBIA. THE SIMILAR RWY LAYOUT. OUR UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA. BEING NIGHT VFR. WE DID HAVE THE FMS SET UP, BUT DUE TO THE CLOSE PROX OF THE ARPTS, IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE ON THE EXTENDED CTRLINE FOR RWY 29. IT SEEMED THE CTLR KNEW WE WERE NOT LINING UP PROPERLY, AND A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT THE OTHER ARPT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. ALSO, IF I HAD REQUESTED FOR THE LOC TO BE SWITCHED ON, WE WOULD HAVE CAUGHT IT SOONER. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE. 1) NEVER ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH UNLESS YOU ARE ON FINAL FOR THE RWY OF INTENDED LNDG. (AS OUR AWKWARD ARR MADE IT SEEM TO BE COLUMBIA WHEN IN FACT IT WASN'T.) 2) ALWAYS REQUEST THE NAVAIDS BE ON EVEN IN VFR CONDITIONS. 3) HAVING THE CTLRS WARN ABOUT SPECIAL PROBS LIKE THIS WHEN IT DOESN'T LOOK AS IF THE ACFT IS LINED UP PROPERLY. (I WAS TOLD THIS HAPPENS A LOT AT COLUMBIA.) 4) PUTTING RWY LAYOUTS ON THE COMMERCIAL CHART PLATES OF ARPTS WITHIN 5 MI OF THE ACTUAL ARPT ALONG WITH A CAUTION IF THEY ARE SIMILAR. IN CONCLUSION, WE EXERCISED GOOD JUDGEMENT WHEN WE REALIZED THAT WE WERE ON APCH FOR THE WRONG RWY. IN THE FUTURE, A LESS EXPERIENCED PLT MAY CONTINUE TO LAND AND THAT COULD BE A SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN.

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.