Narrative:

At 10 miles north of msp, I accepted clearance for a visual approach to runway 11L while descending from 6000' with the airport terminal bldg and environment in sight, but not the runway itself. The first officer, flying the aircraft, maneuvered to a left base leg at 3000', heading about 200 degrees. We lowered the landing gear and accomplished the final landing check list. I then looked for the airport again and observed a rotating beacon at our 10 O'clock position. I asked the approach controller the location of the airport and he confirmed that it was at 10 O'clock, six miles. We continued toward the rotating beacon which, in fact, was at the flying cloud, mn airport, and were handed off to the local (tower) controller. I told him we did not have the runway in sight, and he stated that he would turn up the intensity on the runway lights, and cleared us to land on runway 11L. At that point, I noticed that my ADF pointer, in the VOR position, was pointing to our 8 O'clock position, and that the 11L back course ILS, on the first officer's instrument, was behind us. Realizing that we had passed the msp airport, I so informed the controller and requested a vector back to the traffic pattern. He vectored us left to 060 degrees, which we did. I told him we still didn't see the runway, and he said he would turn the runway lights up more. When he did that, we immediately saw the runway, entered a right base leg, and landed. After landing, the controller requested that I contact him by phone, which I did. During our conversation, he reminded me that the msp airport was not equipped with a rotating beacon. I suggested that a vector back to the airport at that point was preferable to landing at the wrong airport. The area supervisor entered the conversation and informed me that because we had passed the runway, that this was a reportable incident. Our actions notwithstanding, I believe that the lack of a rotating beacon at msp, and the runway lights being in a very dim intensity position during visual approachs were contributing factors in this incident. Supplemental information from acn #86282: I could not see the runway lights with all the other city lights, and told the captain so. Looking at my navigational aids, I confirmed we were northwest of msp and I started a turn toward final. The captain told tower we had lost the airport and the tower said they would turn up the lights. The captain asked if the airport was at 10 O'clock. Tower, hesitantly said, 'yes', and I looked at my instrument and confirmed it was not msp. I asked for a heading and they turned us to 060 degree. The runway lights were turned back down by this time, but we saw the runway and landed uneventfully.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG FLEW PAST THE ARPT ON A VISUAL APCH AT NIGHT.

Narrative: AT 10 MILES NORTH OF MSP, I ACCEPTED CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 11L WHILE DESCENDING FROM 6000' WITH THE ARPT TERMINAL BLDG AND ENVIRONMENT IN SIGHT, BUT NOT THE RWY ITSELF. THE F/O, FLYING THE ACFT, MANEUVERED TO A LEFT BASE LEG AT 3000', HEADING ABOUT 200 DEGREES. WE LOWERED THE LNDG GEAR AND ACCOMPLISHED THE FINAL LNDG CHECK LIST. I THEN LOOKED FOR THE ARPT AGAIN AND OBSERVED A ROTATING BEACON AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK POSITION. I ASKED THE APCH CTLR THE LOCATION OF THE ARPT AND HE CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS AT 10 O'CLOCK, SIX MILES. WE CONTINUED TOWARD THE ROTATING BEACON WHICH, IN FACT, WAS AT THE FLYING CLOUD, MN ARPT, AND WERE HANDED OFF TO THE LOCAL (TWR) CTLR. I TOLD HIM WE DID NOT HAVE THE RWY IN SIGHT, AND HE STATED THAT HE WOULD TURN UP THE INTENSITY ON THE RWY LIGHTS, AND CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 11L. AT THAT POINT, I NOTICED THAT MY ADF POINTER, IN THE VOR POSITION, WAS POINTING TO OUR 8 O'CLOCK POSITION, AND THAT THE 11L BACK COURSE ILS, ON THE FIRST OFFICER'S INSTRUMENT, WAS BEHIND US. REALIZING THAT WE HAD PASSED THE MSP ARPT, I SO INFORMED THE CTLR AND REQUESTED A VECTOR BACK TO THE TFC PATTERN. HE VECTORED US LEFT TO 060 DEGREES, WHICH WE DID. I TOLD HIM WE STILL DIDN'T SEE THE RWY, AND HE SAID HE WOULD TURN THE RWY LIGHTS UP MORE. WHEN HE DID THAT, WE IMMEDIATELY SAW THE RWY, ENTERED A RIGHT BASE LEG, AND LANDED. AFTER LNDG, THE CTLR REQUESTED THAT I CONTACT HIM BY PHONE, WHICH I DID. DURING OUR CONVERSATION, HE REMINDED ME THAT THE MSP ARPT WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH A ROTATING BEACON. I SUGGESTED THAT A VECTOR BACK TO THE ARPT AT THAT POINT WAS PREFERABLE TO LNDG AT THE WRONG ARPT. THE AREA SUPERVISOR ENTERED THE CONVERSATION AND INFORMED ME THAT BECAUSE WE HAD PASSED THE RWY, THAT THIS WAS A REPORTABLE INCIDENT. OUR ACTIONS NOTWITHSTANDING, I BELIEVE THAT THE LACK OF A ROTATING BEACON AT MSP, AND THE RWY LIGHTS BEING IN A VERY DIM INTENSITY POSITION DURING VISUAL APCHS WERE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN THIS INCIDENT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN #86282: I COULD NOT SEE THE RWY LIGHTS WITH ALL THE OTHER CITY LIGHTS, AND TOLD THE CAPT SO. LOOKING AT MY NAVIGATIONAL AIDS, I CONFIRMED WE WERE NW OF MSP AND I STARTED A TURN TOWARD FINAL. THE CAPT TOLD TWR WE HAD LOST THE ARPT AND THE TWR SAID THEY WOULD TURN UP THE LIGHTS. THE CAPT ASKED IF THE ARPT WAS AT 10 O'CLOCK. TWR, HESITANTLY SAID, 'YES', AND I LOOKED AT MY INSTRUMENT AND CONFIRMED IT WAS NOT MSP. I ASKED FOR A HEADING AND THEY TURNED US TO 060 DEG. THE RWY LIGHTS WERE TURNED BACK DOWN BY THIS TIME, BUT WE SAW THE RWY AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY.

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