Narrative:

I was PIC of widebody transport X, stl-lax. First officer PF; I was performing first officer duties. At approximately 25 mi east of airport, I was cleared for a visibility approach to runway 25L, to remain behind an air carrier a aircraft conducting a visibility approach to runway 25R. I reported the air carrier a aircraft in sight. The air carrier a aircraft was sufficiently ahead of my flight, so that it had no further relevance in the incident reported herein. In addition to being cleared for the via approach, I was given various speed control assignments by approach control that included speed control of my flight to the runway 25 OM. Approaching the OM, approach control advised me that traffic at 2 O'clock would be making a visibility approach to runway 24 (north) complex. Shortly thereafter I noted an aircraft Y headed due south into our flight track. This aircraft was above us and descending. This aircraft Y turned onto final for runway 25L, directly in front of us. At this time, my first officer departed the runway 25L localizer course, slightly to the south. I estimated that the intruding aircraft was less than 1 mi in front of us and approximately 800' above us, and descending more rapidly than us. Approach control made no mention of this aircraft to us. When I asked what was going on, approach control became vague and told me to maintain visibility sep with the aircraft Y. I stated quite emphatically that I was unable to provide sep under such circumstances. The approach controller asked tersely, 'what would you like me to do, sir?' I replied, 'whatever it takes to provide adequate and proper sep.' the approach controller then advised me that the 'tower was providing visibility sep.' this is the second and most serious incident of this type that I've experienced at lax within the last yr. The other aircraft (Y) obviously mistook the south complex (runways 25) for the north complex (runways 24). The other aircraft was apparently an arrival from the west or north, then had to do basically a downwind, base and final turn to the north complex. The pilot of that aircraft obviously had the wrong complex in sight and approach control took absolutely no remedial action to stop him from flying almost literally into my face. I was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place because of limited airspace available to the south of the runway 25L localizer (hawthorne airport). I spoke with TRACON supervisor on the phone. He felt that the instruction issued to my flight about the other aircraft at 2 O'clock making a visibility to the north complex satisfied any ATC responsibility in the matter. He stated, 'we didn't know he was going to go to runway 25.' a visibility 'no transgression zone' should be established at lax for aircraft that must make large turns to final for visibility approachs at lax. The aircraft should remain under positive approach control guidance and communications until ATC can ensure that the aft is lined up on final to the correct complex. If such procedures had been in place, ATC could have ordered the offending aircraft to climb and go around to clear my flight path. Had I been just a bit ahead of my position, there could have very been a midair collision. Obviously the other aircraft never saw me. And, I probably would have never seen him had he been at 3 O'clock instead of 2 O'clock. Since we were inside of the OM, we could not have been issued a lower assigned altitude for sep. Also, I doubt the tower was able to apply any meaningful visibility sep techniques in this incident. ATC seemed more interested in silence and 'stonewalling' rather than attempting to resolve an unsafe situation. That attitude seems pervasive in the ATC system today. Also, even though the other pilot plainly violated an ATC instruction, TRACON supervisor seemed to have no interest in taking any remedial action against such sloppy and non complaint operations by the other pilot. It all smacks of, 'we'll just keep the traffic moving--please don't bother us.' I've also filed an official near midair collision report in this matter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIRBORNE CONFLICT BETWEEN 2 ARRIVING ACFT ON VISUALS TO LAX.

Narrative: I WAS PIC OF WDB X, STL-LAX. F/O PF; I WAS PERFORMING F/O DUTIES. AT APPROX 25 MI E OF ARPT, I WAS CLRED FOR A VIS APCH TO RWY 25L, TO REMAIN BEHIND AN ACR A ACFT CONDUCTING A VIS APCH TO RWY 25R. I RPTED THE ACR A ACFT IN SIGHT. THE ACR A ACFT WAS SUFFICIENTLY AHEAD OF MY FLT, SO THAT IT HAD NO FURTHER RELEVANCE IN THE INCIDENT RPTED HEREIN. IN ADDITION TO BEING CLRED FOR THE VIA APCH, I WAS GIVEN VARIOUS SPD CTL ASSIGNMENTS BY APCH CTL THAT INCLUDED SPD CTL OF MY FLT TO THE RWY 25 OM. APCHING THE OM, APCH CTL ADVISED ME THAT TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK WOULD BE MAKING A VIS APCH TO RWY 24 (N) COMPLEX. SHORTLY THEREAFTER I NOTED AN ACFT Y HEADED DUE S INTO OUR FLT TRACK. THIS ACFT WAS ABOVE US AND DSNDING. THIS ACFT Y TURNED ONTO FINAL FOR RWY 25L, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF US. AT THIS TIME, MY F/O DEPARTED THE RWY 25L LOC COURSE, SLIGHTLY TO THE S. I ESTIMATED THAT THE INTRUDING ACFT WAS LESS THAN 1 MI IN FRONT OF US AND APPROX 800' ABOVE US, AND DSNDING MORE RAPIDLY THAN US. APCH CTL MADE NO MENTION OF THIS ACFT TO US. WHEN I ASKED WHAT WAS GOING ON, APCH CTL BECAME VAGUE AND TOLD ME TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP WITH THE ACFT Y. I STATED QUITE EMPHATICALLY THAT I WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE SEP UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. THE APCH CTLR ASKED TERSELY, 'WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO, SIR?' I REPLIED, 'WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND PROPER SEP.' THE APCH CTLR THEN ADVISED ME THAT THE 'TWR WAS PROVIDING VIS SEP.' THIS IS THE SECOND AND MOST SERIOUS INCIDENT OF THIS TYPE THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED AT LAX WITHIN THE LAST YR. THE OTHER ACFT (Y) OBVIOUSLY MISTOOK THE S COMPLEX (RWYS 25) FOR THE N COMPLEX (RWYS 24). THE OTHER ACFT WAS APPARENTLY AN ARR FROM THE W OR N, THEN HAD TO DO BASICALLY A DOWNWIND, BASE AND FINAL TURN TO THE N COMPLEX. THE PLT OF THAT ACFT OBVIOUSLY HAD THE WRONG COMPLEX IN SIGHT AND APCH CTL TOOK ABSOLUTELY NO REMEDIAL ACTION TO STOP HIM FROM FLYING ALMOST LITERALLY INTO MY FACE. I WAS CAUGHT BTWN THE PROVERBIAL ROCK AND A HARD PLACE BECAUSE OF LIMITED AIRSPACE AVAILABLE TO THE S OF THE RWY 25L LOC (HAWTHORNE ARPT). I SPOKE WITH TRACON SUPVR ON THE PHONE. HE FELT THAT THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED TO MY FLT ABOUT THE OTHER ACFT AT 2 O'CLOCK MAKING A VIS TO THE N COMPLEX SATISFIED ANY ATC RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MATTER. HE STATED, 'WE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS GOING TO GO TO RWY 25.' A VIS 'NO TRANSGRESSION ZONE' SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AT LAX FOR ACFT THAT MUST MAKE LARGE TURNS TO FINAL FOR VIS APCHS AT LAX. THE ACFT SHOULD REMAIN UNDER POSITIVE APCH CTL GUIDANCE AND COMS UNTIL ATC CAN ENSURE THAT THE AFT IS LINED UP ON FINAL TO THE CORRECT COMPLEX. IF SUCH PROCS HAD BEEN IN PLACE, ATC COULD HAVE ORDERED THE OFFENDING ACFT TO CLB AND GAR TO CLEAR MY FLT PATH. HAD I BEEN JUST A BIT AHEAD OF MY POS, THERE COULD HAVE VERY BEEN A MIDAIR COLLISION. OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER ACFT NEVER SAW ME. AND, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM HAD HE BEEN AT 3 O'CLOCK INSTEAD OF 2 O'CLOCK. SINCE WE WERE INSIDE OF THE OM, WE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED A LOWER ASSIGNED ALT FOR SEP. ALSO, I DOUBT THE TWR WAS ABLE TO APPLY ANY MEANINGFUL VIS SEP TECHNIQUES IN THIS INCIDENT. ATC SEEMED MORE INTERESTED IN SILENCE AND 'STONEWALLING' RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE AN UNSAFE SITUATION. THAT ATTITUDE SEEMS PERVASIVE IN THE ATC SYS TODAY. ALSO, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER PLT PLAINLY VIOLATED AN ATC INSTRUCTION, TRACON SUPVR SEEMED TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN TAKING ANY REMEDIAL ACTION AGAINST SUCH SLOPPY AND NON COMPLAINT OPS BY THE OTHER PLT. IT ALL SMACKS OF, 'WE'LL JUST KEEP THE TFC MOVING--PLEASE DON'T BOTHER US.' I'VE ALSO FILED AN OFFICIAL NMAC RPT IN THIS MATTER.

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