Narrative:

Flight planned to efd. Hou was alternate. Into efd several routing changes for a couple of lines of WX. Houston approach control was very busy. When we approached the houston area the controllers would vector us then started telling us direct hobby VOR then direct efd. After several times of this the controller asked if we had current WX efd. I said which ATIS I had and he said new ATIS was now current so I told him I would get the new WX. After getting the new WX at efd he told us to expect ILS runway 22 efd. I told him ok and he put us on another vector. We were set up for the approach; tuned and idented at that point. After another heading and altitude change we were cleared for the ILS runway 22. No flags on either instrument. At that point we were showing right of course and correcting because he had flown us through the localizer. He came back to correct this when we broke out and the runway was in front of us to the left 3-5 mi. At that point we were visual and coming back to the left thinking this was runway 22 efd. The controller then said to contact tower 118.7. I called tower on 118.7 and they cleared us to land on runway 22. After landing I realized we had landed at the wrong airport but we had clearance from hobby tower. Taxied to parking. Both airports have runways 17 and 22. I guess with the proximity of both airports so close together that would be the reason that the ILS did not flag as we approached hobby initially in IMC. And at this altitude I could not make out the difference of the airport diagrams. If the approach would have continued we would have to had gone missed due to the needle deflection. Seeing the runway put us into a visual mode and not checking the needle to see if it centered up as we approached the runway. The controller and myself never said the tower's name; just the frequency. This would have averted the mistake. Supplemental information from acn 757850: contributing factors were the severe WX in the area; high workloads for both ATC and the pilots; multiple re-rtes that covered long distances that helped us lose situational awareness; 2 of the same runways in close proximity to each other with the same approach; the PNF and the controllers never said 'houston or ellington tower' when they communicated with each other; we were having problems with our HSI precessing; we assumed that we were vectored through the final course; and our aircraft does not have a moving map on board in the avionics package which would have made us more situationally aware.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE400 LANDED AT AN ARPT OTHER THAN THAT FILED AS THE DEST IN IFR FLT PLAN.

Narrative: FLT PLANNED TO EFD. HOU WAS ALTERNATE. INTO EFD SEVERAL ROUTING CHANGES FOR A COUPLE OF LINES OF WX. HOUSTON APCH CTL WAS VERY BUSY. WHEN WE APCHED THE HOUSTON AREA THE CTLRS WOULD VECTOR US THEN STARTED TELLING US DIRECT HOBBY VOR THEN DIRECT EFD. AFTER SEVERAL TIMES OF THIS THE CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD CURRENT WX EFD. I SAID WHICH ATIS I HAD AND HE SAID NEW ATIS WAS NOW CURRENT SO I TOLD HIM I WOULD GET THE NEW WX. AFTER GETTING THE NEW WX AT EFD HE TOLD US TO EXPECT ILS RWY 22 EFD. I TOLD HIM OK AND HE PUT US ON ANOTHER VECTOR. WE WERE SET UP FOR THE APCH; TUNED AND IDENTED AT THAT POINT. AFTER ANOTHER HDG AND ALT CHANGE WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 22. NO FLAGS ON EITHER INST. AT THAT POINT WE WERE SHOWING R OF COURSE AND CORRECTING BECAUSE HE HAD FLOWN US THROUGH THE LOC. HE CAME BACK TO CORRECT THIS WHEN WE BROKE OUT AND THE RWY WAS IN FRONT OF US TO THE L 3-5 MI. AT THAT POINT WE WERE VISUAL AND COMING BACK TO THE L THINKING THIS WAS RWY 22 EFD. THE CTLR THEN SAID TO CONTACT TWR 118.7. I CALLED TWR ON 118.7 AND THEY CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 22. AFTER LNDG I REALIZED WE HAD LANDED AT THE WRONG ARPT BUT WE HAD CLRNC FROM HOBBY TWR. TAXIED TO PARKING. BOTH ARPTS HAVE RWYS 17 AND 22. I GUESS WITH THE PROX OF BOTH ARPTS SO CLOSE TOGETHER THAT WOULD BE THE REASON THAT THE ILS DID NOT FLAG AS WE APCHED HOBBY INITIALLY IN IMC. AND AT THIS ALT I COULD NOT MAKE OUT THE DIFFERENCE OF THE ARPT DIAGRAMS. IF THE APCH WOULD HAVE CONTINUED WE WOULD HAVE TO HAD GONE MISSED DUE TO THE NEEDLE DEFLECTION. SEEING THE RWY PUT US INTO A VISUAL MODE AND NOT CHKING THE NEEDLE TO SEE IF IT CTRED UP AS WE APCHED THE RWY. THE CTLR AND MYSELF NEVER SAID THE TWR'S NAME; JUST THE FREQ. THIS WOULD HAVE AVERTED THE MISTAKE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 757850: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE THE SEVERE WX IN THE AREA; HIGH WORKLOADS FOR BOTH ATC AND THE PLTS; MULTIPLE RE-RTES THAT COVERED LONG DISTANCES THAT HELPED US LOSE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS; 2 OF THE SAME RWYS IN CLOSE PROX TO EACH OTHER WITH THE SAME APCH; THE PNF AND THE CTLRS NEVER SAID 'HOUSTON OR ELLINGTON TWR' WHEN THEY COMMUNICATED WITH EACH OTHER; WE WERE HAVING PROBS WITH OUR HSI PRECESSING; WE ASSUMED THAT WE WERE VECTORED THROUGH THE FINAL COURSE; AND OUR ACFT DOES NOT HAVE A MOVING MAP ON BOARD IN THE AVIONICS PACKAGE WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE US MORE SITUATIONALLY AWARE.

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.