Narrative:

Small aircraft X (reporter) approaching dpa from southwest at 2500' MSL for noise abatement over cities. Called tower (west/O ATIS, which was changing on hour) approximately 5 mi wsw for touch and go. Heading approximately 340 degrees, given clearance to runway 15 straight in approach. Changed heading to approximately 020 degrees at 2500' MSL. As passing runway 10 centerline, tower changed clearance to runway 10. Changed heading to 100 degrees. Reduced power to bring TAS back to 75 KTS and started descent approximately 3 NM from runway 10. Terminated approach as go around because of extreme high approach set up. Pattern altitude 1500' MSL. Aircraft Y was doing an INS runway 10 ILS approach concurrently with aircraft X with OM approximately 5-6 NM west of airport. This caused both aircraft to be lined up with air carrier Y approximately 200' below X. Reporter never saw Y. Y saw X and broke off approach. The tower controller appears to have thought X was north of runway 10 centerline or northwest of airport. Also, X and Y appear to have both called in near the same time. Reporter heard 1 transmission clearing Y for ILS 10 approach before crossing 10 centerline, followed shortly thereafter with X changed to runway 10 visibility approach. Also, noise abatement over geneva/st charles causes VFR traffic to cross ILS 10 approach at similar altitudes. I would suggest using TRSA arsa approach contact information procedures of contacting aircraft stating altitude and direction, as well as position and intentions. This would help the controller visualize where that aircraft is going to be going and how to sequence. A call from 5 mi west of the airport depending on wind does not meant the aircraft is always heading directly at the airport. The northbound flight path was caused by wasted time looking for ATIS which was being updated at time of approach. This caused original heading of 040 degrees (southwest approach) to put X on edge airport control zone. So, heading was changed to 340 degrees as tower was called for approach clearance. Initial call was stated to controller as west/O ATIS. Because the flight was only approximately 15 NM, there was a limited time to pick up ATIS after leaving aurora municipal airspace. Therefore, X was not able to get ATIS 10-20 NM out, and then monitor tower frequency as approach before contacting. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter had called dpa tower after the incident and was advised that they (tower) were not going to take any action relative to the incident, but that the pilot of the aircraft Y had already contacted them and said he was going to take it up with GADO. Reporter does not consider it that serious and is not going to pursue it further. He added that he could be calm about it because he never did see Y, and therefore had not been scared. The 200' vertical miss distance he provided in his report was quoted to him by the tower as having been given by the Y pilot.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ACFT X IS CLEARED BY TWR FOR TOUCH AND GO AND HAS NMAC WITH Y ON ILS APCH FOR SAME RWY.

Narrative: SMA X (RPTR) APCHING DPA FROM SW AT 2500' MSL FOR NOISE ABATEMENT OVER CITIES. CALLED TWR (W/O ATIS, WHICH WAS CHANGING ON HR) APPROX 5 MI WSW FOR TOUCH AND GO. HDG APPROX 340 DEGS, GIVEN CLRNC TO RWY 15 STRAIGHT IN APCH. CHANGED HDG TO APPROX 020 DEGS AT 2500' MSL. AS PASSING RWY 10 CENTERLINE, TWR CHANGED CLRNC TO RWY 10. CHANGED HDG TO 100 DEGS. REDUCED PWR TO BRING TAS BACK TO 75 KTS AND STARTED DSCNT APPROX 3 NM FROM RWY 10. TERMINATED APCH AS GO AROUND BECAUSE OF EXTREME HIGH APCH SET UP. PATTERN ALT 1500' MSL. ACFT Y WAS DOING AN INS RWY 10 ILS APCH CONCURRENTLY WITH ACFT X WITH OM APPROX 5-6 NM W OF ARPT. THIS CAUSED BOTH ACFT TO BE LINED UP WITH ACR Y APPROX 200' BELOW X. RPTR NEVER SAW Y. Y SAW X AND BROKE OFF APCH. THE TWR CTLR APPEARS TO HAVE THOUGHT X WAS N OF RWY 10 CENTERLINE OR NW OF ARPT. ALSO, X AND Y APPEAR TO HAVE BOTH CALLED IN NEAR THE SAME TIME. RPTR HEARD 1 XMISSION CLRING Y FOR ILS 10 APCH BEFORE XING 10 CENTERLINE, FOLLOWED SHORTLY THEREAFTER WITH X CHANGED TO RWY 10 VIS APCH. ALSO, NOISE ABATEMENT OVER GENEVA/ST CHARLES CAUSES VFR TFC TO CROSS ILS 10 APCH AT SIMILAR ALTS. I WOULD SUGGEST USING TRSA ARSA APCH CONTACT INFO PROCS OF CONTACTING ACFT STATING ALT AND DIRECTION, AS WELL AS POS AND INTENTIONS. THIS WOULD HELP THE CTLR VISUALIZE WHERE THAT ACFT IS GOING TO BE GOING AND HOW TO SEQUENCE. A CALL FROM 5 MI W OF THE ARPT DEPENDING ON WIND DOES NOT MEANT THE ACFT IS ALWAYS HDG DIRECTLY AT THE ARPT. THE NBOUND FLT PATH WAS CAUSED BY WASTED TIME LOOKING FOR ATIS WHICH WAS BEING UPDATED AT TIME OF APCH. THIS CAUSED ORIGINAL HDG OF 040 DEGS (SW APCH) TO PUT X ON EDGE ARPT CTL ZONE. SO, HDG WAS CHANGED TO 340 DEGS AS TWR WAS CALLED FOR APCH CLRNC. INITIAL CALL WAS STATED TO CTLR AS W/O ATIS. BECAUSE THE FLT WAS ONLY APPROX 15 NM, THERE WAS A LIMITED TIME TO PICK UP ATIS AFTER LEAVING AURORA MUNI AIRSPACE. THEREFORE, X WAS NOT ABLE TO GET ATIS 10-20 NM OUT, AND THEN MONITOR TWR FREQ AS APCH BEFORE CONTACTING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR HAD CALLED DPA TWR AFTER THE INCIDENT AND WAS ADVISED THAT THEY (TWR) WERE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION RELATIVE TO THE INCIDENT, BUT THAT THE PLT OF THE ACFT Y HAD ALREADY CONTACTED THEM AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO TAKE IT UP WITH GADO. RPTR DOES NOT CONSIDER IT THAT SERIOUS AND IS NOT GOING TO PURSUE IT FURTHER. HE ADDED THAT HE COULD BE CALM ABOUT IT BECAUSE HE NEVER DID SEE Y, AND THEREFORE HAD NOT BEEN SCARED. THE 200' VERT MISS DISTANCE HE PROVIDED IN HIS RPT WAS QUOTED TO HIM BY THE TWR AS HAVING BEEN GIVEN BY THE Y PLT.

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.