Narrative:

During our descent into the mid continent ict area we thought we had ict in sight when in fact the airport we saw was iab. We were cleared for the visual runway 1L at ict. When we made our initial turn towards what we thought was ict I noticed that it didn't look correct. Ict approach then came on the radio and said that what we had in sight was iab. He then gave us a vector back towards ict for runway 1L. We apologized and complied with his instructions. We landed at ict without further complications. Iab looks exactly like ict. I had the approach up on my mfd but my range was scaled out to 50 NM so it wasn't as definitive like the 5 NM scale where it should have been. At ict runway 1R was closed and it looked exactly like the unplowed parallel taxiway at iab. When I didn't see the diagonal runway as depicted on the ict airport diagram I know there was a discrepancy. This similarity in these 2 airports needs to be denoted on the 20-7 page for ict. Also crews need to verify with ict approach that what they are looking at is ict not iab. Supplemental information from acn 772276: coming into ict; we were vectored for the downwind for runway 1L. Upon descending below 4000 ft; we caught sight of an airport; which we believed to be ict. It had the same n-s runway alignment as ict; and a partially plowed taxiway that was aligned much the way that runway 14/32 should have been at ict. We also saw that the right (easterly) n-s parallel was snow covered -- this looked like what we had heard ict would look like on ATIS; since they were reporting that runways 1R and 32 were closed due to contamination. We reported the airport in sight and were subsequently cleared for the visual approach to runway 1L. As we turned on to final; I noticed that the localizer was not alive (in fact; I had a red X through the CDI) and the captain remarked that the FMS course didn't look right. At this time wichita approach somewhat casually came on frequency; as if this happens fairly often; and remarked that it looked like we were descending into iab and gave us instructions for the go around (climb to 4000 ft and heading 010 degrees). We had descended to around 3350 ft at the time we were instructed to go around. We complied with ATC's instructions; were re-vectored for an ILS to runway 1L; and landed without incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CREW CONFUSED IAB RWY 1L WITH ICT RWY 1L WHILE ON FINAL. THE ERROR WAS RECOGNIZED AFTER ATC QUESTIONED THEM ABOUT THE ACFT'S POS.

Narrative: DURING OUR DSCNT INTO THE MID CONTINENT ICT AREA WE THOUGHT WE HAD ICT IN SIGHT WHEN IN FACT THE ARPT WE SAW WAS IAB. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL RWY 1L AT ICT. WHEN WE MADE OUR INITIAL TURN TOWARDS WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS ICT I NOTICED THAT IT DIDN'T LOOK CORRECT. ICT APCH THEN CAME ON THE RADIO AND SAID THAT WHAT WE HAD IN SIGHT WAS IAB. HE THEN GAVE US A VECTOR BACK TOWARDS ICT FOR RWY 1L. WE APOLOGIZED AND COMPLIED WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS. WE LANDED AT ICT WITHOUT FURTHER COMPLICATIONS. IAB LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE ICT. I HAD THE APCH UP ON MY MFD BUT MY RANGE WAS SCALED OUT TO 50 NM SO IT WASN'T AS DEFINITIVE LIKE THE 5 NM SCALE WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AT ICT RWY 1R WAS CLOSED AND IT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE THE UNPLOWED PARALLEL TXWY AT IAB. WHEN I DIDN'T SEE THE DIAGONAL RWY AS DEPICTED ON THE ICT ARPT DIAGRAM I KNOW THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY. THIS SIMILARITY IN THESE 2 ARPTS NEEDS TO BE DENOTED ON THE 20-7 PAGE FOR ICT. ALSO CREWS NEED TO VERIFY WITH ICT APCH THAT WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IS ICT NOT IAB. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 772276: COMING INTO ICT; WE WERE VECTORED FOR THE DOWNWIND FOR RWY 1L. UPON DSNDING BELOW 4000 FT; WE CAUGHT SIGHT OF AN ARPT; WHICH WE BELIEVED TO BE ICT. IT HAD THE SAME N-S RWY ALIGNMENT AS ICT; AND A PARTIALLY PLOWED TXWY THAT WAS ALIGNED MUCH THE WAY THAT RWY 14/32 SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT ICT. WE ALSO SAW THAT THE R (EASTERLY) N-S PARALLEL WAS SNOW COVERED -- THIS LOOKED LIKE WHAT WE HAD HEARD ICT WOULD LOOK LIKE ON ATIS; SINCE THEY WERE RPTING THAT RWYS 1R AND 32 WERE CLOSED DUE TO CONTAMINATION. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 1L. AS WE TURNED ON TO FINAL; I NOTICED THAT THE LOC WAS NOT ALIVE (IN FACT; I HAD A RED X THROUGH THE CDI) AND THE CAPT REMARKED THAT THE FMS COURSE DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT. AT THIS TIME WICHITA APCH SOMEWHAT CASUALLY CAME ON FREQ; AS IF THIS HAPPENS FAIRLY OFTEN; AND REMARKED THAT IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE DSNDING INTO IAB AND GAVE US INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GAR (CLB TO 4000 FT AND HDG 010 DEGS). WE HAD DSNDED TO AROUND 3350 FT AT THE TIME WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO GO AROUND. WE COMPLIED WITH ATC'S INSTRUCTIONS; WERE RE-VECTORED FOR AN ILS TO RWY 1L; AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.