Narrative:

We were inbound from the northeast; to land at aao. The active runway was runway 36. With a ceiling of 2200 ft AGL; 7 mi visibility; and winds from the north of 20 KTS; we briefed for the RNAV GPS runway 36 approach; with the possibility of a visual approach. We were cleared to descend to 3000 ft; and to proceed directly to wumpa intersection which is the initial fix for the approach east of the final course and southeast of the airport. Before reaching wumpa; wichita approach turned us west for a vector to intercept the final approach course inside of catch intersection. Proceeding west on a right base leg at 3000 ft MSL; we were in good VMC and began looking for the airport. I spotted what I believed to be the aao airport at 2 O'clock position; and shortly thereafter the sic pilot who was flying; confirmed he had visual contact with the airport also. I reported the airport in sight to wichita and the controller cleared us for the visual approach. Shortly thereafter; I canceled the IFR flight plan and switched to unicom. What I thought was aao airport was actually beech factory (bec) airport; only 3 mi south of aao. It is slightly east of the GPS approach centerline to aao; and also has 1 runway of the same orientation -- runway 36/18. I had set the aao ILS DME on the #1 VOR for reference; both FMS's were set up for the GPS approach to runway 36 at aao; and 'map mode' was in use. We were using all of these as references until shortly before turning final; then naved visually for landing to what we thought was aao; but was actually beech factory airport (bec). Not realizing this; we landed at bec. The tower called us on unicom; had us change to their frequency; and then cleared us for takeoff to aao. There was no mention of any traffic conflicts; nor did we observe any traffic in the pattern or on the ground at bec. This could have been avoided by: 1) continuing to reference electronic navigation to near touchdown after being cleared to the visual. 2) more careful scrutiny of area airports when conducting the approach briefing. 3) remaining with ATC on the IFR flight plan until landing. 4) following the approach completely instead of requesting a visual approach. 5) a cautionary word from wichita approach when clearing an aircraft for a visual approach to any of the several airports in this area. This should be a standard operating procedure for ATC. How ironic that the last 2 fixes on this approach are catch and yokju. Catch you.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW GOES VISUAL PREMATURELY ON APCH TO UNFAMILIAR ARPT. LAND AT BEC VICE AAO.

Narrative: WE WERE INBOUND FROM THE NE; TO LAND AT AAO. THE ACTIVE RWY WAS RWY 36. WITH A CEILING OF 2200 FT AGL; 7 MI VISIBILITY; AND WINDS FROM THE N OF 20 KTS; WE BRIEFED FOR THE RNAV GPS RWY 36 APCH; WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF A VISUAL APCH. WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO 3000 FT; AND TO PROCEED DIRECTLY TO WUMPA INTXN WHICH IS THE INITIAL FIX FOR THE APCH E OF THE FINAL COURSE AND SE OF THE ARPT. BEFORE REACHING WUMPA; WICHITA APCH TURNED US W FOR A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE INSIDE OF CATCH INTXN. PROCEEDING W ON A R BASE LEG AT 3000 FT MSL; WE WERE IN GOOD VMC AND BEGAN LOOKING FOR THE ARPT. I SPOTTED WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE THE AAO ARPT AT 2 O'CLOCK POS; AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE SIC PLT WHO WAS FLYING; CONFIRMED HE HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ARPT ALSO. I RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT TO WICHITA AND THE CTLR CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; I CANCELED THE IFR FLT PLAN AND SWITCHED TO UNICOM. WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AAO ARPT WAS ACTUALLY BEECH FACTORY (BEC) ARPT; ONLY 3 MI S OF AAO. IT IS SLIGHTLY E OF THE GPS APCH CTRLINE TO AAO; AND ALSO HAS 1 RWY OF THE SAME ORIENTATION -- RWY 36/18. I HAD SET THE AAO ILS DME ON THE #1 VOR FOR REF; BOTH FMS'S WERE SET UP FOR THE GPS APCH TO RWY 36 AT AAO; AND 'MAP MODE' WAS IN USE. WE WERE USING ALL OF THESE AS REFS UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE TURNING FINAL; THEN NAVED VISUALLY FOR LNDG TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS AAO; BUT WAS ACTUALLY BEECH FACTORY ARPT (BEC). NOT REALIZING THIS; WE LANDED AT BEC. THE TWR CALLED US ON UNICOM; HAD US CHANGE TO THEIR FREQ; AND THEN CLRED US FOR TKOF TO AAO. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY TFC CONFLICTS; NOR DID WE OBSERVE ANY TFC IN THE PATTERN OR ON THE GND AT BEC. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY: 1) CONTINUING TO REF ELECTRONIC NAV TO NEAR TOUCHDOWN AFTER BEING CLRED TO THE VISUAL. 2) MORE CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF AREA ARPTS WHEN CONDUCTING THE APCH BRIEFING. 3) REMAINING WITH ATC ON THE IFR FLT PLAN UNTIL LNDG. 4) FOLLOWING THE APCH COMPLETELY INSTEAD OF REQUESTING A VISUAL APCH. 5) A CAUTIONARY WORD FROM WICHITA APCH WHEN CLRING AN ACFT FOR A VISUAL APCH TO ANY OF THE SEVERAL ARPTS IN THIS AREA. THIS SHOULD BE A STANDARD OPERATING PROC FOR ATC. HOW IRONIC THAT THE LAST 2 FIXES ON THIS APCH ARE CATCH AND YOKJU. CATCH YOU.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.