Narrative:

While on a 1.5 mile final to runway 33 at isp for a touch-n-go; isp tower notified us of a 737 on a 5 mile final to runway 24 (intersecting) and the possibility that we would need to go-around. We had the 737 in sight as he turned right to establish final course to 24. The tower was trying to raise the 737 on the tower frequency and on the second attempt the 737 responded and was notified that a cherokee (us) was on a 1.5 mile to runway 33. The 737 responded that he understood. The tower controller then instructed me to go-around. I was at approximately 700 feet and applied full power and started a climb. At that point; I noticed the 737 start a climbing left turn that brought him on a direct collision course (I could see both wing root landing lights). Kisp tower then asked the 737 if he was still inbound to land. The response was 'yes; standby.' kisp tower then notified the 737 that we (the cherokee) were going around. The 737 responded that they were going around. The controller advised that the cherokee was going around and that was not an instruction and that they were still cleared to land. The 737 then responded 'unable;' and that they were now also going around. This put us on a direct collision course with the 737 as we were both still flying runway headings and climbing. I then decided to deviate and turn right to establish a heading past the 737 current course to avoid a further conflict. The controller then instructed us to enter a right downwind to runway 33. The controller asked the 737 for the cause of their go-around to which the 737 responded that they 'were not configured in time.'contributing factors include a 17-24 knot head wind out of 300 degrees that slowed our ground speed and may have contributed to the controller thinking that we could touch-n-go ahead of the approaching 737. Also contributing is the 737 deviating from final approach course and possible interpreting the ATC instruction for us to go-around as intended for them.the controller's inactions to issue a new heading caused me to determine an unsafe condition was unfolding and that I was unable to continue and then deviated from my cleared heading. The condition could have been prevented by not having a cherokee and a 737 on intersecting approaches within 6 miles in the current wind conditions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA28R pilot reported an airborne conflict with a B737 on approach to ISP; citing weather and ATC technique as contributing.

Narrative: While on a 1.5 mile final to Runway 33 at ISP for a touch-n-go; ISP Tower notified us of a 737 on a 5 mile final to Runway 24 (intersecting) and the possibility that we would need to go-around. We had the 737 in sight as he turned right to establish final course to 24. The Tower was trying to raise the 737 on the Tower frequency and on the second attempt the 737 responded and was notified that a Cherokee (us) was on a 1.5 mile to Runway 33. The 737 responded that he understood. The Tower Controller then instructed me to go-around. I was at approximately 700 feet and applied full power and started a climb. At that point; I noticed the 737 start a climbing left turn that brought him on a direct collision course (I could see both wing root landing lights). KISP Tower then asked the 737 if he was still inbound to land. The response was 'yes; standby.' KISP Tower then notified the 737 that we (the Cherokee) were going around. The 737 responded that they were going around. The controller advised that the Cherokee was going around and that was not an instruction and that they were still cleared to land. The 737 then responded 'Unable;' and that they were now also going around. This put us on a direct collision course with the 737 as we were both still flying runway headings and climbing. I then decided to deviate and turn right to establish a heading past the 737 current course to avoid a further conflict. The controller then instructed us to enter a right downwind to Runway 33. The controller asked the 737 for the cause of their go-around to which the 737 responded that they 'were not configured in time.'Contributing factors include a 17-24 knot head wind out of 300 degrees that slowed our ground speed and may have contributed to the controller thinking that we could touch-n-go ahead of the approaching 737. Also contributing is the 737 deviating from final approach course and possible interpreting the ATC instruction for us to go-around as intended for them.The controller's inactions to issue a new heading caused me to determine an unsafe condition was unfolding and that I was unable to continue and then deviated from my cleared heading. The condition could have been prevented by not having a Cherokee and a 737 on intersecting approaches within 6 miles in the current wind conditions.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.