Narrative:

Small aircraft X was executing ILS runway 23 VFR on a 4 mi final low approach only. I cleared air carrier Y for the visual when he was 10 southeast of cak, then I saw small aircraft X still on final. I cancelled air carrier Y's approach and told him turn 10 degree right vector for sequencing following small aircraft X on final. Traffic was issued and air carrier Y said in sight. Visual approach again issued told #2 following small aircraft X contact tower. Air carrier Y then proceeded to cut inside of traffic told to follow. Supplemental information from acn 129133. Vectored and subsequently cleared for a visual approach to runway 23. A few minutes later the approach clearance was cancelled. We were then advised we were number 2 for the airport following an small aircraft. The traffic was called 1030 to 11 O clock. We confirmed that we had the traffic in that position and were reclred for the approach following the small aircraft. Both I and the captain remember wondering why the other aircraft was even a factor, for there was no possible way we could beat him to the airport. We were then told to contact the tower. I was flying and turning left base to a final when I noticed our aircraft turning on all lights, landing, navigation and strobes at 2 and 230 O clock. I continued the turn. I turned a bit sharper to ensure no chance of a collision, although I would not call it an abrupt evasive maneuver. The captain then said continue your approach. I did. When the captain asked the tower about the traffic he he said its an small aircraft on an ILS to runway 23. The controller asked if approach had pointed traffic out to us, the captain said yes but not this guy. After a very long pause the tower controller advised us that our traffic now at 3-4 O clock was the one we were to follow. We both were reclred for approach us 1 and small aircraft X 2. No further comment from tower. After landing air carrier Y told to contact the tower supervisor. We did. Supplemental information from 128585. Our face to face conversation with the tower supervisor brought to light several interesting conclusions. We as a crew felt that this could likely lead to a violation against us. Our conversation with the tower supervisor left us feeling that the facility was more concerned that we would initiate a legal complaint. Other than confirming that mis-identify of traffic had let to this conflict there was no discussion of the event in detail. There was also no discussion or offer of discussion on the subject of how can we prevent this from happening again?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW FAILED TO FOLLOW ATC INSTRUCTIONS. PLT DEVIATION.

Narrative: SMA X WAS EXECUTING ILS RWY 23 VFR ON A 4 MI FINAL LOW APCH ONLY. I CLRED ACR Y FOR THE VISUAL WHEN HE WAS 10 SE OF CAK, THEN I SAW SMA X STILL ON FINAL. I CANCELLED ACR Y'S APCH AND TOLD HIM TURN 10 DEG RIGHT VECTOR FOR SEQUENCING FOLLOWING SMA X ON FINAL. TFC WAS ISSUED AND ACR Y SAID IN SIGHT. VISUAL APCH AGAIN ISSUED TOLD #2 FOLLOWING SMA X CONTACT TWR. ACR Y THEN PROCEEDED TO CUT INSIDE OF TFC TOLD TO FOLLOW. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 129133. VECTORED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 23. A FEW MINUTES LATER THE APCH CLRNC WAS CANCELLED. WE WERE THEN ADVISED WE WERE NUMBER 2 FOR THE ARPT FOLLOWING AN SMA. THE TFC WAS CALLED 1030 TO 11 O CLOCK. WE CONFIRMED THAT WE HAD THE TFC IN THAT POS AND WERE RECLRED FOR THE APCH FOLLOWING THE SMA. BOTH I AND THE CAPT REMEMBER WONDERING WHY THE OTHER ACFT WAS EVEN A FACTOR, FOR THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE WAY WE COULD BEAT HIM TO THE ARPT. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO CONTACT THE TWR. I WAS FLYING AND TURNING LEFT BASE TO A FINAL WHEN I NOTICED OUR ACFT TURNING ON ALL LIGHTS, LNDG, NAV AND STROBES AT 2 AND 230 O CLOCK. I CONTINUED THE TURN. I TURNED A BIT SHARPER TO ENSURE NO CHANCE OF A COLLISION, ALTHOUGH I WOULD NOT CALL IT AN ABRUPT EVASIVE MANEUVER. THE CAPT THEN SAID CONTINUE YOUR APCH. I DID. WHEN THE CAPT ASKED THE TWR ABOUT THE TFC HE HE SAID ITS AN SMA ON AN ILS TO RWY 23. THE CTLR ASKED IF APCH HAD POINTED TFC OUT TO US, THE CAPT SAID YES BUT NOT THIS GUY. AFTER A VERY LONG PAUSE THE TWR CTLR ADVISED US THAT OUR TFC NOW AT 3-4 O CLOCK WAS THE ONE WE WERE TO FOLLOW. WE BOTH WERE RECLRED FOR APCH US 1 AND SMA X 2. NO FURTHER COMMENT FROM TWR. AFTER LNDG ACR Y TOLD TO CONTACT THE TWR SUPVR. WE DID. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM 128585. OUR FACE TO FACE CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR SUPVR BROUGHT TO LIGHT SEVERAL INTERESTING CONCLUSIONS. WE AS A CREW FELT THAT THIS COULD LIKELY LEAD TO A VIOLATION AGAINST US. OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR SUPVR LEFT US FEELING THAT THE FAC WAS MORE CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD INITIATE A LEGAL COMPLAINT. OTHER THAN CONFIRMING THAT MIS-IDENT OF TFC HAD LET TO THIS CONFLICT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE EVENT IN DETAIL. THERE WAS ALSO NO DISCUSSION OR OFFER OF DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF HOW CAN WE PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN?

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.