Narrative:

While on a vector to intercept the final approach course of runway 30R at msp, approach cleared us for the visual. Approach asked if we had the field in sight. We answered field insight and were cleared for the visual. The captain was flying via the autoplt in the heading mode and unknown to me, at the time, the captain was looking at the wrong airport and was not paying attention with respect to situational awareness. As we crossed the final for runway 30L, I, the non flying first officer, told the captain to turn to re-intercept. Approach called shortly after my discovery and queried us as to where we were headed. Approach then gave us a re-intercept vector. The remainder of the approach and landing were uneventful. How problem arose: captain had poor situational awareness. Contributing factor: non sterile cockpit below 10000 ft. How was it discovered: first officer first discovered the situation. Correction action: re-intercepted the final approach. In the CL65 each pilot has 2 screens in front of him/her. One is the pfd 'primary flight display,' the other displays a map of the area with airport diagrams, route information, runway diagrams, etc. In this case, the PNF was commanded to display the TCASII instead of the airport and route information. If the latter had been displayed, I feel this clearance deviation would not have happened. The PNF could have detected the misalignment with the runway 30L approach course. Clear day visibility unrestr.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF A CL65 REGIONAL JET FLEW THROUGH THE FINAL APCH COURSE DURING A VISUAL APCH DUE TO OBSERVING THE WRONG ARPT RWY WHICH WAS SIMILARLY SITUATED. AT THE SAME TIME THE FO NOTICED THE CAPT'S ERROR, THE APCH CTLR INTERVENED AND PROVIDED VECTORS BACK ON COURSE.

Narrative: WHILE ON A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE OF RWY 30R AT MSP, APCH CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL. APCH ASKED IF WE HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT. WE ANSWERED FIELD INSIGHT AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. THE CAPT WAS FLYING VIA THE AUTOPLT IN THE HEADING MODE AND UNKNOWN TO ME, AT THE TIME, THE CAPT WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG ARPT AND WAS NOT PAYING ATTN WITH RESPECT TO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. AS WE CROSSED THE FINAL FOR RWY 30L, I, THE NON FLYING FO, TOLD THE CAPT TO TURN TO RE-INTERCEPT. APCH CALLED SHORTLY AFTER MY DISCOVERY AND QUERIED US AS TO WHERE WE WERE HEADED. APCH THEN GAVE US A RE-INTERCEPT VECTOR. THE REMAINDER OF THE APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. HOW PROB AROSE: CAPT HAD POOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. CONTRIBUTING FACTOR: NON STERILE COCKPIT BELOW 10000 FT. HOW WAS IT DISCOVERED: FO FIRST DISCOVERED THE SIT. CORRECTION ACTION: RE-INTERCEPTED THE FINAL APCH. IN THE CL65 EACH PLT HAS 2 SCREENS IN FRONT OF HIM/HER. ONE IS THE PFD 'PRIMARY FLT DISPLAY,' THE OTHER DISPLAYS A MAP OF THE AREA WITH ARPT DIAGRAMS, RTE INFO, RWY DIAGRAMS, ETC. IN THIS CASE, THE PNF WAS COMMANDED TO DISPLAY THE TCASII INSTEAD OF THE ARPT AND RTE INFO. IF THE LATTER HAD BEEN DISPLAYED, I FEEL THIS CLRNC DEV WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. THE PNF COULD HAVE DETECTED THE MISALIGNMENT WITH THE RWY 30L APCH COURSE. CLR DAY VISIBILITY UNRESTR.

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.