Narrative:

We were descending in VFR conditions on an IFR flight plan, en route to winter haven, fl, being handled by tampa approach. The last clearance was direct lakeland VOR, direct winter haven. I advised the PNF earlier that I wanted to fly direct to the lakeland VOR and then follow the 071 radial off lakeland to the winter haven airport, which is actually the VOR approach to winter haven. As we approached the lakeland VOR, tampa approach cleared us direct to the airport and advised us to report it in sight. The PNF accepted the clearance and selected direct to the airport in the VLF and called out a course of 126, then 132. I initially flew this course and then shortly thereafter advised I would fly a slightly more westerly course so as to intercept the lakeland VOR 071 radial prior to reaching the winter haven airport. The PNF called out an airport beacon at 12 O'clock. At this time, the VLF showed a distance to the airport of 12 mi, which I judged to be correct. For the next 6 mi, the PNF attempted to report the airport in sight to tampa approach, which was now saturated with traffic on the frequency. Our attention focused on the approaching airport, configuring the aircraft for the approach, identing runway 04, and attempting to contact approach. The PNF finally talked to tampa, reported the airport at 12 O'clock. Tampa cleared us for the visual, we cancelled IFR and proceeded with the approach. On the base leg to 04, I confirmed crossing perpendicular to the other runway and reported the runway confign matched what we expected to see at winter haven. Turning final, I picked up the PAPI, but winter haven has a VASI. I concluded the PAPI must be part of the lighting system upgrades currently being accomplished at winter haven runway 04. The landing lights then picked up runway number 05. I had seen before where magnetic variation changes, but an immediate change to runway number markings is not made. At this time, I had doubts as to which airport we were about to land at. I elected to land as we were nearly in the flare, the runway was more than the required length. Our mistake was confirmed after an uneventful landing at bartow, which at the time, was uncontrolled. We planned the next leg to winter haven, about 6 mi away, and flew there VFR and made an uneventful landing. A complex set of circumstances led to this event. When first cleared direct to winter haven, we centered the needle on the VLF and flew the direct course. I have since confirmed that, when in very close proximity to a waypoint, this VLF is very slow to show course changes. VLF is a very poor NAVAID when in such close proximity to a waypoint. We reported the airport in sight at 12 O'clock and 6 mi to tampa approach. They said nothing that would indicate a disagreement with their radar and cleared us for the visual. I failed to follow a personal, long-standing policy of always flying an instrument approach if available, when flying at night into an unfamiliar airport. The PNF, although a rated co-captain, has considerably less aviation experience than myself. However, partly because of his overbearing demeanor, I allowed his actions to overcome my best judgement as to how to complete this approach. Never again! I will adhere to the sound policy of flying the instrument approach in these circumstances, and although I want to foster a team attitude in the cockpit, I can't allow a domineering personality to influence my better judgement.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF CPR LTT JET ACFT INADVERTENTLY LANDED AT THE WRONG ARPT.

Narrative: WE WERE DSNDING IN VFR CONDITIONS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN, ENRTE TO WINTER HAVEN, FL, BEING HANDLED BY TAMPA APCH. THE LAST CLRNC WAS DIRECT LAKELAND VOR, DIRECT WINTER HAVEN. I ADVISED THE PNF EARLIER THAT I WANTED TO FLY DIRECT TO THE LAKELAND VOR AND THEN FOLLOW THE 071 RADIAL OFF LAKELAND TO THE WINTER HAVEN ARPT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE VOR APCH TO WINTER HAVEN. AS WE APCHED THE LAKELAND VOR, TAMPA APCH CLRED US DIRECT TO THE ARPT AND ADVISED US TO RPT IT IN SIGHT. THE PNF ACCEPTED THE CLRNC AND SELECTED DIRECT TO THE ARPT IN THE VLF AND CALLED OUT A COURSE OF 126, THEN 132. I INITIALLY FLEW THIS COURSE AND THEN SHORTLY THEREAFTER ADVISED I WOULD FLY A SLIGHTLY MORE WESTERLY COURSE SO AS TO INTERCEPT THE LAKELAND VOR 071 RADIAL PRIOR TO REACHING THE WINTER HAVEN ARPT. THE PNF CALLED OUT AN ARPT BEACON AT 12 O'CLOCK. AT THIS TIME, THE VLF SHOWED A DISTANCE TO THE ARPT OF 12 MI, WHICH I JUDGED TO BE CORRECT. FOR THE NEXT 6 MI, THE PNF ATTEMPTED TO RPT THE ARPT IN SIGHT TO TAMPA APCH, WHICH WAS NOW SATURATED WITH TFC ON THE FREQ. OUR ATTN FOCUSED ON THE APCHING ARPT, CONFIGURING THE ACFT FOR THE APCH, IDENTING RWY 04, AND ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT APCH. THE PNF FINALLY TALKED TO TAMPA, RPTED THE ARPT AT 12 O'CLOCK. TAMPA CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL, WE CANCELLED IFR AND PROCEEDED WITH THE APCH. ON THE BASE LEG TO 04, I CONFIRMED XING PERPENDICULAR TO THE OTHER RWY AND RPTED THE RWY CONFIGN MATCHED WHAT WE EXPECTED TO SEE AT WINTER HAVEN. TURNING FINAL, I PICKED UP THE PAPI, BUT WINTER HAVEN HAS A VASI. I CONCLUDED THE PAPI MUST BE PART OF THE LIGHTING SYS UPGRADES CURRENTLY BEING ACCOMPLISHED AT WINTER HAVEN RWY 04. THE LNDG LIGHTS THEN PICKED UP RWY NUMBER 05. I HAD SEEN BEFORE WHERE MAGNETIC VARIATION CHANGES, BUT AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE TO RWY NUMBER MARKINGS IS NOT MADE. AT THIS TIME, I HAD DOUBTS AS TO WHICH ARPT WE WERE ABOUT TO LAND AT. I ELECTED TO LAND AS WE WERE NEARLY IN THE FLARE, THE RWY WAS MORE THAN THE REQUIRED LENGTH. OUR MISTAKE WAS CONFIRMED AFTER AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG AT BARTOW, WHICH AT THE TIME, WAS UNCTLED. WE PLANNED THE NEXT LEG TO WINTER HAVEN, ABOUT 6 MI AWAY, AND FLEW THERE VFR AND MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. A COMPLEX SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES LED TO THIS EVENT. WHEN FIRST CLRED DIRECT TO WINTER HAVEN, WE CTRED THE NEEDLE ON THE VLF AND FLEW THE DIRECT COURSE. I HAVE SINCE CONFIRMED THAT, WHEN IN VERY CLOSE PROX TO A WAYPOINT, THIS VLF IS VERY SLOW TO SHOW COURSE CHANGES. VLF IS A VERY POOR NAVAID WHEN IN SUCH CLOSE PROX TO A WAYPOINT. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT AT 12 O'CLOCK AND 6 MI TO TAMPA APCH. THEY SAID NOTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE A DISAGREEMENT WITH THEIR RADAR AND CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL. I FAILED TO FOLLOW A PERSONAL, LONG-STANDING POLICY OF ALWAYS FLYING AN INST APCH IF AVAILABLE, WHEN FLYING AT NIGHT INTO AN UNFAMILIAR ARPT. THE PNF, ALTHOUGH A RATED CO-CAPT, HAS CONSIDERABLY LESS AVIATION EXPERIENCE THAN MYSELF. HOWEVER, PARTLY BECAUSE OF HIS OVERBEARING DEMEANOR, I ALLOWED HIS ACTIONS TO OVERCOME MY BEST JUDGEMENT AS TO HOW TO COMPLETE THIS APCH. NEVER AGAIN! I WILL ADHERE TO THE SOUND POLICY OF FLYING THE INST APCH IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ALTHOUGH I WANT TO FOSTER A TEAM ATTITUDE IN THE COCKPIT, I CAN'T ALLOW A DOMINEERING PERSONALITY TO INFLUENCE MY BETTER JUDGEMENT.

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.