Narrative:

Departed tzr to osu. Advised tzr ground that I was VFR to osu. I was instructed to depart runway 22 with a right turn northbound to osu. After leaving tzr ground control, I had placed both tower frequencys in communication #1 (tzr in active, osu in standby) and osu ATIS in communication #2. Tzr tower requested confirmation that I was northbound to osu and I replied in the affirmative. Upon clearing tzr class D, switched to osu ATIS for landing information on communication #2. Returned to communication #1 on what I thought was osu tower, however, I must have inadvertently returned communication #1 to tzr rather than osu. Made position report on communication #1 stating that I was 6 mi southwest inbound with ATIS information. Tower responded to make right traffic for what I thought I heard was runway 27L. I acknowledged that I was to enter r-hand traffic runway 27L. This seemed very strange and non standard. I then replied 'confirm you want r-hand traffic runway 27L for aircraft X.' the controller replied 'affirmative, r-hand traffic, we have aerobatic in progress on the l-hand side of the runway.' I continued inbound to osu crossing the runway 27L departure path about 3.5 mi west looking for any traffic. At about 3.3 NM west, the tower queried my position and I replied that I was '3 mi west for r-hand traffic runway 27L.' he rogered my report. I reported entering 'midfield r-hand downwind runway 27L' and the reply was 'continue, not in sight.' about that time, the controller finally used the 'bolton tower' and I knew there was a serious problem in progress. I immediately turned north to clear the area while contacting osu on the appropriate frequency. I was instructed to continue the r-hand turn and set up for a base leg entry for runway 27L. The approach and landing were normal, and no loss of any separation occurred. The incident was caused by my inattn to the appropriate radio frequency being used and sense of familiarity with the area. I expected to hear runway 27L, but the controller may have indeed said runway 22, which was the active I departed on just 7 mins earlier. So, indeed it was a hearback error on my part. However, since I have never seen osu operate with r-hand traffic runway 27L, that's why I made 1 definitive request for clarification, and another more subtle attempt. In both cases, the tzr controller did not either hear me saying runway 27L, or failed to connect that I was headed to osu and might have the incorrect frequency. Nor did I hear him identify himself as bolton tower till the final transmission. Upon landing, contacted osu tower cabin attendant by phone and debriefed situation. Discussed how the events occurred and asked how this needed to be resolved. The controller indicated that the matter was closed and no further action need be taken by any of the parties. While the responsibility is solely mine, there was certainly 2 readback/hearback mistakes made. Additionally, neither myself nor the tzr controller ever connected that if I had just departed northbound, that there is no possible way that I could now be southwest of the airport. Evidently, we both heard what we expected to hear, and responded accordingly. A classic case of multiple readback/hearback mistakes.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VFR AA1 ENTERING TFC PATTERN AT OSU IS ON INCORRECT FREQ.

Narrative: DEPARTED TZR TO OSU. ADVISED TZR GND THAT I WAS VFR TO OSU. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO DEPART RWY 22 WITH A R TURN NBOUND TO OSU. AFTER LEAVING TZR GND CTL, I HAD PLACED BOTH TWR FREQS IN COM #1 (TZR IN ACTIVE, OSU IN STANDBY) AND OSU ATIS IN COM #2. TZR TWR REQUESTED CONFIRMATION THAT I WAS NBOUND TO OSU AND I REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. UPON CLRING TZR CLASS D, SWITCHED TO OSU ATIS FOR LNDG INFO ON COM #2. RETURNED TO COM #1 ON WHAT I THOUGHT WAS OSU TWR, HOWEVER, I MUST HAVE INADVERTENTLY RETURNED COM #1 TO TZR RATHER THAN OSU. MADE POS RPT ON COM #1 STATING THAT I WAS 6 MI SW INBOUND WITH ATIS INFO. TWR RESPONDED TO MAKE R TFC FOR WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD WAS RWY 27L. I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I WAS TO ENTER R-HAND TFC RWY 27L. THIS SEEMED VERY STRANGE AND NON STANDARD. I THEN REPLIED 'CONFIRM YOU WANT R-HAND TFC RWY 27L FOR ACFT X.' THE CTLR REPLIED 'AFFIRMATIVE, R-HAND TFC, WE HAVE AEROBATIC IN PROGRESS ON THE L-HAND SIDE OF THE RWY.' I CONTINUED INBOUND TO OSU XING THE RWY 27L DEP PATH ABOUT 3.5 MI W LOOKING FOR ANY TFC. AT ABOUT 3.3 NM W, THE TWR QUERIED MY POS AND I REPLIED THAT I WAS '3 MI W FOR R-HAND TFC RWY 27L.' HE ROGERED MY RPT. I RPTED ENTERING 'MIDFIELD R-HAND DOWNWIND RWY 27L' AND THE REPLY WAS 'CONTINUE, NOT IN SIGHT.' ABOUT THAT TIME, THE CTLR FINALLY USED THE 'BOLTON TWR' AND I KNEW THERE WAS A SERIOUS PROB IN PROGRESS. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED N TO CLR THE AREA WHILE CONTACTING OSU ON THE APPROPRIATE FREQ. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTINUE THE R-HAND TURN AND SET UP FOR A BASE LEG ENTRY FOR RWY 27L. THE APCH AND LNDG WERE NORMAL, AND NO LOSS OF ANY SEPARATION OCCURRED. THE INCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY MY INATTN TO THE APPROPRIATE RADIO FREQ BEING USED AND SENSE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA. I EXPECTED TO HEAR RWY 27L, BUT THE CTLR MAY HAVE INDEED SAID RWY 22, WHICH WAS THE ACTIVE I DEPARTED ON JUST 7 MINS EARLIER. SO, INDEED IT WAS A HEARBACK ERROR ON MY PART. HOWEVER, SINCE I HAVE NEVER SEEN OSU OPERATE WITH R-HAND TFC RWY 27L, THAT'S WHY I MADE 1 DEFINITIVE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, AND ANOTHER MORE SUBTLE ATTEMPT. IN BOTH CASES, THE TZR CTLR DID NOT EITHER HEAR ME SAYING RWY 27L, OR FAILED TO CONNECT THAT I WAS HEADED TO OSU AND MIGHT HAVE THE INCORRECT FREQ. NOR DID I HEAR HIM IDENT HIMSELF AS BOLTON TWR TILL THE FINAL XMISSION. UPON LNDG, CONTACTED OSU TWR CAB BY PHONE AND DEBRIEFED SIT. DISCUSSED HOW THE EVENTS OCCURRED AND ASKED HOW THIS NEEDED TO BE RESOLVED. THE CTLR INDICATED THAT THE MATTER WAS CLOSED AND NO FURTHER ACTION NEED BE TAKEN BY ANY OF THE PARTIES. WHILE THE RESPONSIBILITY IS SOLELY MINE, THERE WAS CERTAINLY 2 READBACK/HEARBACK MISTAKES MADE. ADDITIONALLY, NEITHER MYSELF NOR THE TZR CTLR EVER CONNECTED THAT IF I HAD JUST DEPARTED NBOUND, THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT I COULD NOW BE SW OF THE ARPT. EVIDENTLY, WE BOTH HEARD WHAT WE EXPECTED TO HEAR, AND RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY. A CLASSIC CASE OF MULTIPLE READBACK/HEARBACK MISTAKES.

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.