Narrative:

While on approach into newark (ewr); new york approach told us to fly to an intersection. We asked him to repeat the intersection because we were unfamiliar with it and was not shown on our approach plate. He then told us to fly a 120 degree heading to join the localizer. My first officer read back fly a 120 degree heading to join ILS runway 22R. When flying the 120 degree heading and waiting for the localizer to come alive; the controller called us and asked where we were. We responded that we are on the 120 degree heading waiting on the localizer. He told us that we passed through the course and told us to fly the 230 degree heading if we wanted the visual approach. We then proceeded to turn a heading of 230 degrees and then we saw a runway in the location the controller told us to look for the airport. Then the controller told us that we were high on the approach and we told him that we could still continue with normal maneuvers. Then he (the controller) told us to go to tower. My first officer responds going to tower 118.3 (newark). Newark tower told us to continue for runway 22R. As we got close to the runway my first officer asked if we were cleared to land runway 22R. Tower respond no; there is traffic on the runway. My first officer responded correctly to tell them we were going around because we were too close to the runway. The tower then asked where we were. We responded that we were at 300 ft on approach. The tower then responded a few seconds later that we were over teterboro (teb) airport and go to approach. As we did so; approach controller told us that we should have said something that we were going to newark and not teterboro; even though we filed for newark. He claims he mentioned teterboro in one of our clrncs. The controller then re-vectored us back around to newark airport; this time for runway 22R and our localizer checked on the runway and heading. This event ended safely. However; at no time did my first officer or I ever recall the controller ever mentioning teterboro in any one clearance on the radio. The event also happened at night and in the rain; which it made hard for us to tell earlier that we were landing at the wrong airport. Furthermore; we did see the runway light at teterboro but could not tell it was the wrong airport until we were almost over the airport. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that the initial vectors given by approach control confused him and he lost track of his relative position to ewr. This aircraft is not equipped with an FMC or a map display which further complicated the problem. The cloudy conditions were also detrimental.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LJ35 FLT CREW FILED TO EWR AND RECEIVED VECTORS TO TEB WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE. FLT CREW GOES AROUND FROM 300 FT OVER TEB AFTER EWR TOWER INFORMS THEM THEY WERE NOT IN SIGHT.

Narrative: WHILE ON APCH INTO NEWARK (EWR); NEW YORK APCH TOLD US TO FLY TO AN INTXN. WE ASKED HIM TO REPEAT THE INTXN BECAUSE WE WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH IT AND WAS NOT SHOWN ON OUR APCH PLATE. HE THEN TOLD US TO FLY A 120 DEG HDG TO JOIN THE LOC. MY FO READ BACK FLY A 120 DEG HDG TO JOIN ILS RWY 22R. WHEN FLYING THE 120 DEG HDG AND WAITING FOR THE LOC TO COME ALIVE; THE CTLR CALLED US AND ASKED WHERE WE WERE. WE RESPONDED THAT WE ARE ON THE 120 DEG HDG WAITING ON THE LOC. HE TOLD US THAT WE PASSED THROUGH THE COURSE AND TOLD US TO FLY THE 230 DEG HDG IF WE WANTED THE VISUAL APCH. WE THEN PROCEEDED TO TURN A HDG OF 230 DEGS AND THEN WE SAW A RWY IN THE LOCATION THE CTLR TOLD US TO LOOK FOR THE ARPT. THEN THE CTLR TOLD US THAT WE WERE HIGH ON THE APCH AND WE TOLD HIM THAT WE COULD STILL CONTINUE WITH NORMAL MANEUVERS. THEN HE (THE CTLR) TOLD US TO GO TO TWR. MY FO RESPONDS GOING TO TWR 118.3 (NEWARK). NEWARK TWR TOLD US TO CONTINUE FOR RWY 22R. AS WE GOT CLOSE TO THE RWY MY FO ASKED IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 22R. TWR RESPOND NO; THERE IS TFC ON THE RWY. MY FO RESPONDED CORRECTLY TO TELL THEM WE WERE GOING AROUND BECAUSE WE WERE TOO CLOSE TO THE RWY. THE TWR THEN ASKED WHERE WE WERE. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE AT 300 FT ON APCH. THE TWR THEN RESPONDED A FEW SECONDS LATER THAT WE WERE OVER TETERBORO (TEB) ARPT AND GO TO APCH. AS WE DID SO; APCH CTLR TOLD US THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING THAT WE WERE GOING TO NEWARK AND NOT TETERBORO; EVEN THOUGH WE FILED FOR NEWARK. HE CLAIMS HE MENTIONED TETERBORO IN ONE OF OUR CLRNCS. THE CTLR THEN RE-VECTORED US BACK AROUND TO NEWARK ARPT; THIS TIME FOR RWY 22R AND OUR LOC CHKED ON THE RWY AND HDG. THIS EVENT ENDED SAFELY. HOWEVER; AT NO TIME DID MY FO OR I EVER RECALL THE CTLR EVER MENTIONING TETERBORO IN ANY ONE CLRNC ON THE RADIO. THE EVENT ALSO HAPPENED AT NIGHT AND IN THE RAIN; WHICH IT MADE HARD FOR US TO TELL EARLIER THAT WE WERE LNDG AT THE WRONG ARPT. FURTHERMORE; WE DID SEE THE RWY LIGHT AT TETERBORO BUT COULD NOT TELL IT WAS THE WRONG ARPT UNTIL WE WERE ALMOST OVER THE ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER STATED THAT THE INITIAL VECTORS GIVEN BY APPROACH CONTROL CONFUSED HIM AND HE LOST TRACK OF HIS RELATIVE POSITION TO EWR. THIS ACFT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AN FMC OR A MAP DISPLAY WHICH FURTHER COMPLICATED THE PROBLEM. THE CLOUDY CONDITIONS WERE ALSO DETRIMENTAL.

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.