Narrative:

Problem arose: I was inbound to hsd on an IFR flight plan. Upon descending I was advised by ATC that the airport was at 12 O'clock position and some number of mi away. I proceeded to what I thought was the hsd airport. In fact; I was proceeding to pwa located about 5 NM to the southeast of hsd. I indicated to ATC that I had the field in sight and would cancel my IFR flight plan. ATC obliged the change and I began position reports on hsd CTAF and landed. After taxiing from the active runway to the ramp; I stopped in front of one of the FBO's. Problem discovered: I was contacted on the hsd frequency by the tower at pwa. I became aware at that time I had landed at pwa instead of hsd. Contributing factors: I was unfamiliar with the oklahoma city area. The hsd and pwa airports have identical runway orientations. When advised by ATC that the runway was at 12 O'clock position; the pwa runway was correctly oriented and aligned with the nose of the aircraft. Corrective actions: none taken as incident was concluded. Human performance considerations. Perceptions; judgments; decisions: due to the correct orientation of the field and its position described to me by ATC; I believed I was proceeding to the correct airfield. Actions or inactions: I believe that the advisory by ATC; of the position of the airfield could be made more clear. Under these circumstances of an airfield of identical orientation located approximately 5 mi away; a better course of action may be to advise pilots another such field is in the vicinity. Previously; I have flown to rap and the controllers advised of the airforce base located directly to the north of rap. Further; because of the danger of so many planes transitioning in the vicinity of hsd and pwa; some type of coordination for landing by one control tower may be advisable. Next; as a pilot; I should not have assumed; because ATC called the airport's position for me and that I idented an airport at that position; that I was proceeding to the correct airport. Further; I should have studied the airport diagrams for an airport that is situated so close to the destination airport to avoid this exact confusion. However; even if I had avoided landing at pwa; I would have already violated pwa's class D airspace. Finally; I was attempting to lessen the controller's load by canceling the IFR flight plan since the WX was clear. A better course of action would have been to remain under ATC control until the termination of the flight. Here; ATC may wish to advise traffic that such course may be preferable because of the proximity of the other airfield. This may further enhance control and reduce such mishaps.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PILOT REPORTS LANDING AT PWA WHILE ATTEMPTING TO LAND AT HSD VISUALLY.

Narrative: PROB AROSE: I WAS INBOUND TO HSD ON AN IFR FLT PLAN. UPON DSNDING I WAS ADVISED BY ATC THAT THE ARPT WAS AT 12 O'CLOCK POS AND SOME NUMBER OF MI AWAY. I PROCEEDED TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE HSD ARPT. IN FACT; I WAS PROCEEDING TO PWA LOCATED ABOUT 5 NM TO THE SE OF HSD. I INDICATED TO ATC THAT I HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT AND WOULD CANCEL MY IFR FLT PLAN. ATC OBLIGED THE CHANGE AND I BEGAN POS RPTS ON HSD CTAF AND LANDED. AFTER TAXIING FROM THE ACTIVE RWY TO THE RAMP; I STOPPED IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE FBO'S. PROB DISCOVERED: I WAS CONTACTED ON THE HSD FREQ BY THE TWR AT PWA. I BECAME AWARE AT THAT TIME I HAD LANDED AT PWA INSTEAD OF HSD. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: I WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE OKLAHOMA CITY AREA. THE HSD AND PWA ARPTS HAVE IDENTICAL RWY ORIENTATIONS. WHEN ADVISED BY ATC THAT THE RWY WAS AT 12 O'CLOCK POS; THE PWA RWY WAS CORRECTLY ORIENTED AND ALIGNED WITH THE NOSE OF THE ACFT. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: NONE TAKEN AS INCIDENT WAS CONCLUDED. HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS. PERCEPTIONS; JUDGMENTS; DECISIONS: DUE TO THE CORRECT ORIENTATION OF THE FIELD AND ITS POS DESCRIBED TO ME BY ATC; I BELIEVED I WAS PROCEEDING TO THE CORRECT AIRFIELD. ACTIONS OR INACTIONS: I BELIEVE THAT THE ADVISORY BY ATC; OF THE POS OF THE AIRFIELD COULD BE MADE MORE CLR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN AIRFIELD OF IDENTICAL ORIENTATION LOCATED APPROX 5 MI AWAY; A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION MAY BE TO ADVISE PLTS ANOTHER SUCH FIELD IS IN THE VICINITY. PREVIOUSLY; I HAVE FLOWN TO RAP AND THE CTLRS ADVISED OF THE AIRFORCE BASE LOCATED DIRECTLY TO THE N OF RAP. FURTHER; BECAUSE OF THE DANGER OF SO MANY PLANES TRANSITIONING IN THE VICINITY OF HSD AND PWA; SOME TYPE OF COORD FOR LNDG BY ONE CTL TWR MAY BE ADVISABLE. NEXT; AS A PLT; I SHOULD NOT HAVE ASSUMED; BECAUSE ATC CALLED THE ARPT'S POS FOR ME AND THAT I IDENTED AN ARPT AT THAT POS; THAT I WAS PROCEEDING TO THE CORRECT ARPT. FURTHER; I SHOULD HAVE STUDIED THE ARPT DIAGRAMS FOR AN ARPT THAT IS SITUATED SO CLOSE TO THE DEST ARPT TO AVOID THIS EXACT CONFUSION. HOWEVER; EVEN IF I HAD AVOIDED LNDG AT PWA; I WOULD HAVE ALREADY VIOLATED PWA'S CLASS D AIRSPACE. FINALLY; I WAS ATTEMPTING TO LESSEN THE CTLR'S LOAD BY CANCELING THE IFR FLT PLAN SINCE THE WX WAS CLR. A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO REMAIN UNDER ATC CTL UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF THE FLT. HERE; ATC MAY WISH TO ADVISE TFC THAT SUCH COURSE MAY BE PREFERABLE BECAUSE OF THE PROX OF THE OTHER AIRFIELD. THIS MAY FURTHER ENHANCE CTL AND REDUCE SUCH MISHAPS.

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.