Narrative:

Flying a military spc on a visual approach to syracuse airport in new york, approach control informed us that we were #2 for the airport behind an light transport on final for runway 32 and #1 for landing on runway 28. At approximately 3 mi, approach told us to contact tower. The PNF switched to tower and had to wait for another aircraft to complete its transmission before making initial contact. Upon initial contact, tower informed us that we were #2 behind an small aircraft for runway 28. By this time we were on a 1.5 mi final at approximately 1000' MSL without the small aircraft in sight. The PNF queried the tower about the small aircraft's location. We did not receive a satisfactory response. I initiated a wave-off as the PNF continued with his attempt to ascertain the small aircraft's position, when tower without using a call sign stated, 'make a left 360.' I assumed that the small aircraft was off to our right, because runway 32 was also in use and since I had already initiated the wave-off that the left 360 was for us. I commenced a left turn and we found ourselves closing with an air carrier flight on approach to runway 32. The potential conflict was avoided by continuing our climb with no apparent evasive action by the air carrier flight. In my opinion the contributing factors were simultaneous intersecting runway operations with minimum spacing compounded by poor radio discipline and marginal visibility due to haze and the time of day.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OPERATIONS ON 2 RWYS, 32 AND 28, HAZE, DUSK. TRAFFIC NOT SIGHTED, PLT INITIATED 'WAVE OFF' AS TWR CALLED 'MAKE LEFT 360.' THIS TURN PUT ACFT ON COLLISION COURSE WITH ACR.

Narrative: FLYING A MIL SPC ON A VISUAL APCH TO SYRACUSE ARPT IN NEW YORK, APCH CTL INFORMED US THAT WE WERE #2 FOR THE ARPT BEHIND AN LTT ON FINAL FOR RWY 32 AND #1 FOR LNDG ON RWY 28. AT APPROX 3 MI, APCH TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR. THE PNF SWITCHED TO TWR AND HAD TO WAIT FOR ANOTHER ACFT TO COMPLETE ITS XMISSION BEFORE MAKING INITIAL CONTACT. UPON INITIAL CONTACT, TWR INFORMED US THAT WE WERE #2 BEHIND AN SMA FOR RWY 28. BY THIS TIME WE WERE ON A 1.5 MI FINAL AT APPROX 1000' MSL WITHOUT THE SMA IN SIGHT. THE PNF QUERIED THE TWR ABOUT THE SMA'S LOCATION. WE DID NOT RECEIVE A SATISFACTORY RESPONSE. I INITIATED A WAVE-OFF AS THE PNF CONTINUED WITH HIS ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN THE SMA'S POSITION, WHEN TWR WITHOUT USING A CALL SIGN STATED, 'MAKE A LEFT 360.' I ASSUMED THAT THE SMA WAS OFF TO OUR RIGHT, BECAUSE RWY 32 WAS ALSO IN USE AND SINCE I HAD ALREADY INITIATED THE WAVE-OFF THAT THE LEFT 360 WAS FOR US. I COMMENCED A LEFT TURN AND WE FOUND OURSELVES CLOSING WITH AN ACR FLT ON APCH TO RWY 32. THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT WAS AVOIDED BY CONTINUING OUR CLIMB WITH NO APPARENT EVASIVE ACTION BY THE ACR FLT. IN MY OPINION THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE SIMULTANEOUS INTERSECTING RWY OPERATIONS WITH MINIMUM SPACING COMPOUNDED BY POOR RADIO DISCIPLINE AND MARGINAL VISIBILITY DUE TO HAZE AND THE TIME OF DAY.

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