Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 21.5
Situational Awareness; Confusion
Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
I had just taken over all radar positions and was moderately busy. I noticed Aircraft X had descended from his assigned altitude of 3000 feet to 2500 feet; which is the MVA. Since he was landing at GMU; I asked if he had the airport in sight. He said he did; so I cleared him for the Visual Approach and switched him to GMU Tower. The CIC (Controller in Charge) was next to me working flight data and noticed the aircraft was descending to land on the closed runway at GYH. The CIC notified GMU who said they were not talking to aircraft. I notified GYH who had a touch-and-go aircraft on final to RY 5; which converges with the closed north-south runway. The aircraft was about 200 feet AGL when GMU tower got radio contact with the aircraft to issue a climb.  This is not a new problem. A large air carrier aircraft almost landed at GMU by mistake last year. Another large air carrier aircraft landed at GYH rather than GSP about 15 years ago. In the vast majority of cases; the aircraft is alerted well before it becomes critical. This is not unique to GSP approach. If there is a national SME; we should ask for advice. If there is not a SME or national committee on this; there needs to be one. GPS to the final approach fix seems [to] decrease the frequency of occurrence. Charted visual approaches with GPS fixes to the three airports (GMU; GYH; GSP) might be a game changer.  We should compile the Best Practices locally and nationally. Should 'Do not confuse...' be a NOTAM at the 3 airports? Can 'Do not confuse with...' be on the approach plates? Do we need to have a statement on the ATIS? If we need it on the ATIS; GYH needs an ATIS. GYH needs a D-brite Radar display. That would add another set of eyes. Many years ago there was a 'Do not confuse...' statement on the air carrier and air taxi release paper work from dispatch. Is it still on the paper work for all the airlines? This is also a problem for ZTL Area 2 when GSP closes overnight. What training and best practices do they have? Are there better procedures we can use for VFR aircraft? The closed runway is used as a test track and for truck driver training. How can it be made less tempting to land on? Is there a way to put blinking lights on the X's that would make them more visible? Should different airports have different color rotating beacons?The longer you work at GSP the more cautious you get with airport identification; but you don't always have time to verify with every aircraft. So we need the pilots to understand airport identification could be a problem before their engine starts.
Aircraft X; expecting Visual Approach to runway 1; assigned 3000 feet. The pilot descended below assigned altitude to 2500 feet (the MVA). TRACON called the airport at 12 o'clock and 10 miles; the pilot reported it in sight. TRACON issued Visual Approach clearance and switched the aircraft to GMU ATCT. The pilot was not advised of multiple airports in the vicinity.The aircraft was observed descending towards closed runway 35 at GYH (about 5 miles SSW of GMU). At this point the aircraft was in the delegated airspace of GYH ATCT without coordination. There was no low altitude alert. CIC (Controller in Charge) working flight data instructed GMU ATCT to issue a climb to the aircraft. The aircraft descended as low as 1200 feet (245 feet above GYH airport elevation) before starting a climb about one mile from the closed runway threshold. The aircraft remained on GMU frequency and landed runway 1 without further incident. FLM (Front Line Manager) instructed GMU to issue a Brasher warning while the aircraft was on short final to runway 1.The pilot called the facility. He stated that he was unfamiliar with the area. He had the GMU ILS tuned in; and was aware of multiple airports; but was visually deceived by being lined up for some time with the closed runway at GYH. He was using an FAA TPP (Terminal Procedures Publication) ILS RWY 1 chart; which depicts runway 5-23 at GYH; but does not depict the closed runway.I was the TRACON CIC; working flight data; and monitoring West Radar. I observed Aircraft X descending towards the closed runway at GYH; and brought it to the attention of West Radar. The cause of the incident was the pilot's unfamiliarity with the multiple airports near GMU combined with the failure of TRACON to ensure that the pilot had the correct airport in sight.I have filed reports on similar incidents in the past.I was previously informed that closed runways will not be depicted on approach plates; however; I still contend that this particular closed runway at GYH should be depicted on all runway 1 approach plates into GMU. In addition; an advisory should be added to the plates; such as 'CAUTION: Closed runway at GYH airport (5 miles SSW of GMU) can be mistaken for runway 1.'In my conversation with the pilot after the incident he stated that he did not see any 'X's on the closed runway. These 'X's are the last line of defense before a closed runway landing; and should be much larger if they are to have any effectiveness.
An aircraft was cleared for a Visual Approach. The pilot made the approach to the wrong airport to a closed runway. Pilot narrative states the airport was closed however the airport was not closed only the runway they made the approach to.