Narrative:

We were flying ILS approach to runway 25L in lax. Approach control advised us of an medium large transport turning in from the north, heading in a southernly direction, for a visibility approach to runway 25R. We saw the aircraft from 8 mi distance and observed his approach while flying the ILS. When I appeared to me the medium large transport was not turning towards the airport, in a westerly direction. I asked approach if he could discern his flight path or intentions (the medium large transport was not on the approach frequency we were on). The controller could not tell but I advised him the medium large transport was not turning toward the airport but would be overshooting final and intruding into our flight path. This did occur and after some time he gradually corrected towards runway 25R. The medium large transport said he could see the airport for the visibility approach to runway 25R. From his flight path it is clear he could not see the airport. He seemingly staggered around in a westerly direction until he could see runway 25R. His intrusion onto the 25L ILS that I was flying on then his slow corrective to runway 25R caused me to have to fly south of the centerline of 25L ILS and subsequently miss the approach. It is my opinion the medium large transport lost sight of runway 25R due to lower than expected visibility, did not report this to approach control or the tower and then tried to fly a modified ILS approach to the airport. It was unsafe, unprofessional and illegal. The medium large transport should have missed the approach instead of trying to salvage our approach that was not what he had agreed to fly. (IFR verses a visibility approach) (the runways 25L and right) were not visible to us until 4 1/2 mi on the DME. There is no way the medium large transport could have seen the runways during the time of the approach we needed to take evasive action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ON FINAL APCH INTO LAX RWY 25L TAKES EVASIVE ACTION DUE TO ACR OVERSHOOTING VISUAL APCH ON RWY 25R.

Narrative: WE WERE FLYING ILS APCH TO RWY 25L IN LAX. APCH CTL ADVISED US OF AN MLG TURNING IN FROM THE N, HDG IN A SOUTHERNLY DIRECTION, FOR A VIS APCH TO RWY 25R. WE SAW THE ACFT FROM 8 MI DISTANCE AND OBSERVED HIS APCH WHILE FLYING THE ILS. WHEN I APPEARED TO ME THE MLG WAS NOT TURNING TOWARDS THE ARPT, IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION. I ASKED APCH IF HE COULD DISCERN HIS FLT PATH OR INTENTIONS (THE MLG WAS NOT ON THE APCH FREQ WE WERE ON). THE CTLR COULD NOT TELL BUT I ADVISED HIM THE MLG WAS NOT TURNING TOWARD THE ARPT BUT WOULD BE OVERSHOOTING FINAL AND INTRUDING INTO OUR FLT PATH. THIS DID OCCUR AND AFTER SOME TIME HE GRADUALLY CORRECTED TOWARDS RWY 25R. THE MLG SAID HE COULD SEE THE ARPT FOR THE VIS APCH TO RWY 25R. FROM HIS FLT PATH IT IS CLR HE COULD NOT SEE THE ARPT. HE SEEMINGLY STAGGERED AROUND IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION UNTIL HE COULD SEE RWY 25R. HIS INTRUSION ONTO THE 25L ILS THAT I WAS FLYING ON THEN HIS SLOW CORRECTIVE TO RWY 25R CAUSED ME TO HAVE TO FLY S OF THE CTRLINE OF 25L ILS AND SUBSEQUENTLY MISS THE APCH. IT IS MY OPINION THE MLG LOST SIGHT OF RWY 25R DUE TO LOWER THAN EXPECTED VISIBILITY, DID NOT RPT THIS TO APCH CTL OR THE TWR AND THEN TRIED TO FLY A MODIFIED ILS APCH TO THE ARPT. IT WAS UNSAFE, UNPROFESSIONAL AND ILLEGAL. THE MLG SHOULD HAVE MISSED THE APCH INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SALVAGE OUR APCH THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE HAD AGREED TO FLY. (IFR VERSES A VIS APCH) (THE RWYS 25L AND R) WERE NOT VISIBLE TO US UNTIL 4 1/2 MI ON THE DME. THERE IS NO WAY THE MLG COULD HAVE SEEN THE RWYS DURING THE TIME OF THE APCH WE NEEDED TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION.

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.