Narrative:

We were cleared for a visual approach to the rapid city airport while 15 mi out. (Approach indicated the airport was at 12 O'clock and 15 mi. We observed an airport at approximately the 11:30 position and 15 mi; believing this to be rapid city we accepted the clearance). The runway pattern and orientation at both airports are similar; in addition there were no navaids to help with navigation. The only VOR which was of use was located 90 degrees to our flight path and several mi from the airport. (Both airports are intersected by the same radial from this VOR). While on base leg of approach noticed the runway appeared to be 'larger' than I was expecting (by this I mean it appeared longer and wider than anticipated). Turning final I asked the tower if they had us in sight. They responded 'negative.' as we were on final and close to the airport this seemed to confirm the problem. I began the missed approach/go around. A few seconds later, the tower called us in sight and indicated we were 5 mi north. The controller then added 'that was not the rapid city airport.' we then spotted the rapid city airport and landed. Contributing factors: 1) eastbound direction of flight had us looking into the sun, which was close to the horizon. 2) both pilots were tired - - we left the hotel early and did not get much sleep. 3) I failed to consider how close the other airport was to our destination, a small change in heading was all it took to 'change' our destination. Lacking a VOR or other NAVAID on the field I should have waited until we were close enough to the airport that there could be no doubt before accepting the visual.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CPR LTT MADE AN APCH TO THE WRONG ARPT. THEY DID NOT LAND.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO THE RAPID CITY ARPT WHILE 15 MI OUT. (APCH INDICATED THE ARPT WAS AT 12 O'CLOCK AND 15 MI. WE OBSERVED AN ARPT AT APPROX THE 11:30 POS AND 15 MI; BELIEVING THIS TO BE RAPID CITY WE ACCEPTED THE CLRNC). THE RWY PATTERN AND ORIENTATION AT BOTH ARPTS ARE SIMILAR; IN ADDITION THERE WERE NO NAVAIDS TO HELP WITH NAV. THE ONLY VOR WHICH WAS OF USE WAS LOCATED 90 DEGS TO OUR FLT PATH AND SEVERAL MI FROM THE ARPT. (BOTH ARPTS ARE INTERSECTED BY THE SAME RADIAL FROM THIS VOR). WHILE ON BASE LEG OF APCH NOTICED THE RWY APPEARED TO BE 'LARGER' THAN I WAS EXPECTING (BY THIS I MEAN IT APPEARED LONGER AND WIDER THAN ANTICIPATED). TURNING FINAL I ASKED THE TWR IF THEY HAD US IN SIGHT. THEY RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE.' AS WE WERE ON FINAL AND CLOSE TO THE ARPT THIS SEEMED TO CONFIRM THE PROBLEM. I BEGAN THE MISSED APCH/GAR. A FEW SECONDS LATER, THE TWR CALLED US IN SIGHT AND INDICATED WE WERE 5 MI N. THE CTLR THEN ADDED 'THAT WAS NOT THE RAPID CITY ARPT.' WE THEN SPOTTED THE RAPID CITY ARPT AND LANDED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) EBOUND DIRECTION OF FLT HAD US LOOKING INTO THE SUN, WHICH WAS CLOSE TO THE HORIZON. 2) BOTH PLTS WERE TIRED - - WE LEFT THE HOTEL EARLY AND DID NOT GET MUCH SLEEP. 3) I FAILED TO CONSIDER HOW CLOSE THE OTHER ARPT WAS TO OUR DEST, A SMALL CHANGE IN HDG WAS ALL IT TOOK TO 'CHANGE' OUR DEST. LACKING A VOR OR OTHER NAVAID ON THE FIELD I SHOULD HAVE WAITED UNTIL WE WERE CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE ARPT THAT THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT BEFORE ACCEPTING THE VISUAL.

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