Narrative:

We (there was an instrument rated copilot on board; current in type) had departed at XA30 that evening. Following the osh NOTAM for departure; we then contacted milwaukee approach for flight following into east troy airport for fuel stop and landed uneventfully. After reaching cruise altitude of 2900 ft MSL for the next leg to kenosha; contact was again made to milwaukee approach for flight following to enw; which was established. Approach was advised we had the airport in sight and also the local WX. The controller initially started to give us a frequency change; but stumbled and then told us to 'squawk VFR;' and frequency change was approved. This seemed odd to us; as we expected a handoff to enw; as I was aware a control tower was now present at enw. I assumed the tower was closed that time of evening from the way the approach controller released us (no handoff). I then made an initial call advising traffic of our intent to land runway 6L approximately 5 mi from the airport; unsure if we were in class D airspace at the time; to which the enw tower controller asked our location. I gave the position inbound; to which he replied with a clearance to land runway 6R. I responded with a remark that we are cleared to land on runway 6R; with a comment about the 'black' runway (it had been 2 yrs since the last visit to enw; and I did not recall the runway 6R runway being there last time -- it looked as if it was recently blacktopped compared to the other concrete runways). The controller did not respond; I then requested a confirmation of runway 6R as the assigned runway. No response was given. On final approach; with wing flaps deployed; I realized the landing gear was not extended during the pre-landing check. At the instant I was ready to cycle the gear; the controller advised us to 'go around.' on climb out; a right pattern was made for a return for landing; which was made uneventfully. Taxi instructions were given; but due to unfamiliarity with the new runway; progressive instructions were requested. Instructions were given; with a request to call the tower on the telephone. On reflection of the evening's events; I realize that I was probably fatigued after the busy departure from osh (VFR). Also factors contributing were unfamiliarity of the area; the apparent confusion about a handoff to tower; and change of my expectation of the landing runway. While I was appreciative of the tower controller's action for the go around; I feel my altitude and distance would have allowed for landing gear extension and landing; but the go around was the correct choice.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE35 PLT; DISTRACTED BY FAMILIARITY PROBLEMS; FAILS TO EXTEND LANDING GEAR ON APCH TO ENW. MAKES TOWER DIRECTED GAR PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN.

Narrative: WE (THERE WAS AN INST RATED COPLT ON BOARD; CURRENT IN TYPE) HAD DEPARTED AT XA30 THAT EVENING. FOLLOWING THE OSH NOTAM FOR DEP; WE THEN CONTACTED MILWAUKEE APCH FOR FLT FOLLOWING INTO EAST TROY ARPT FOR FUEL STOP AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER REACHING CRUISE ALT OF 2900 FT MSL FOR THE NEXT LEG TO KENOSHA; CONTACT WAS AGAIN MADE TO MILWAUKEE APCH FOR FLT FOLLOWING TO ENW; WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED. APCH WAS ADVISED WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND ALSO THE LCL WX. THE CTLR INITIALLY STARTED TO GIVE US A FREQ CHANGE; BUT STUMBLED AND THEN TOLD US TO 'SQUAWK VFR;' AND FREQ CHANGE WAS APPROVED. THIS SEEMED ODD TO US; AS WE EXPECTED A HDOF TO ENW; AS I WAS AWARE A CTL TWR WAS NOW PRESENT AT ENW. I ASSUMED THE TWR WAS CLOSED THAT TIME OF EVENING FROM THE WAY THE APCH CTLR RELEASED US (NO HDOF). I THEN MADE AN INITIAL CALL ADVISING TFC OF OUR INTENT TO LAND RWY 6L APPROX 5 MI FROM THE ARPT; UNSURE IF WE WERE IN CLASS D AIRSPACE AT THE TIME; TO WHICH THE ENW TWR CTLR ASKED OUR LOCATION. I GAVE THE POS INBOUND; TO WHICH HE REPLIED WITH A CLRNC TO LAND RWY 6R. I RESPONDED WITH A REMARK THAT WE ARE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 6R; WITH A COMMENT ABOUT THE 'BLACK' RWY (IT HAD BEEN 2 YRS SINCE THE LAST VISIT TO ENW; AND I DID NOT RECALL THE RWY 6R RWY BEING THERE LAST TIME -- IT LOOKED AS IF IT WAS RECENTLY BLACKTOPPED COMPARED TO THE OTHER CONCRETE RWYS). THE CTLR DID NOT RESPOND; I THEN REQUESTED A CONFIRMATION OF RWY 6R AS THE ASSIGNED RWY. NO RESPONSE WAS GIVEN. ON FINAL APCH; WITH WING FLAPS DEPLOYED; I REALIZED THE LNDG GEAR WAS NOT EXTENDED DURING THE PRE-LNDG CHK. AT THE INSTANT I WAS READY TO CYCLE THE GEAR; THE CTLR ADVISED US TO 'GO AROUND.' ON CLBOUT; A R PATTERN WAS MADE FOR A RETURN FOR LNDG; WHICH WAS MADE UNEVENTFULLY. TAXI INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN; BUT DUE TO UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE NEW RWY; PROGRESSIVE INSTRUCTIONS WERE REQUESTED. INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN; WITH A REQUEST TO CALL THE TWR ON THE TELEPHONE. ON REFLECTION OF THE EVENING'S EVENTS; I REALIZE THAT I WAS PROBABLY FATIGUED AFTER THE BUSY DEP FROM OSH (VFR). ALSO FACTORS CONTRIBUTING WERE UNFAMILIARITY OF THE AREA; THE APPARENT CONFUSION ABOUT A HDOF TO TWR; AND CHANGE OF MY EXPECTATION OF THE LNDG RWY. WHILE I WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE TWR CTLR'S ACTION FOR THE GAR; I FEEL MY ALT AND DISTANCE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR LNDG GEAR EXTENSION AND LNDG; BUT THE GAR WAS THE CORRECT CHOICE.

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