Narrative:

We were on the ILS/DME 25L at lax. Visibility was approximately 4-5 NM in haze. Approach called out traffic at our 10 O'clock and 4 NM, an medium large transport. We were informed he had the airport in sight and was performing a visibility approach to runway 25R. We called the traffic in sight, and approach advised us to maintain visibility sep. We accepted this clearance. The medium large transport was heading 90 degree toward us on base for runway 25R. However, he overshot runway 25R and left; and we had to turn left to avoid collision. He corrected back to final at approximately 4 NM, but we elected to go around due to close spacing. There was no way he was visibility with the runway. He was 9 NM out in 4-5 NM visibility (we checked it on approach). He accepted a visibility approach west/O visibility on the runway, overshot the runway, and we had to take evasive action to avoid him. Not very professional. Our acceptance of the maintain visibility sep made it our responsibility to get out of his way and we had to go around. It's a lousy deal to be on an instrument approach and have to go around for an aircraft on a visibility approach. The moral to the story is don't accept a visibility approach unless you have preceeding traffic (there was none in this case) or runway in sight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG ON VISUAL APCH FOR A PARALLEL RWY OVERSHOOTS TURN TO FINAL APCH AND FORCES REPORTER TO EXECUTE MISSED APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE ON THE ILS/DME 25L AT LAX. VIS WAS APPROX 4-5 NM IN HAZE. APCH CALLED OUT TFC AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK AND 4 NM, AN MLG. WE WERE INFORMED HE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND WAS PERFORMING A VIS APCH TO RWY 25R. WE CALLED THE TFC IN SIGHT, AND APCH ADVISED US TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP. WE ACCEPTED THIS CLRNC. THE MLG WAS HDG 90 DEG TOWARD US ON BASE FOR RWY 25R. HOWEVER, HE OVERSHOT RWY 25R AND L; AND WE HAD TO TURN L TO AVOID COLLISION. HE CORRECTED BACK TO FINAL AT APPROX 4 NM, BUT WE ELECTED TO GO AROUND DUE TO CLOSE SPACING. THERE WAS NO WAY HE WAS VIS WITH THE RWY. HE WAS 9 NM OUT IN 4-5 NM VIS (WE CHKED IT ON APCH). HE ACCEPTED A VIS APCH W/O VIS ON THE RWY, OVERSHOT THE RWY, AND WE HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID HIM. NOT VERY PROFESSIONAL. OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE MAINTAIN VIS SEP MADE IT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET OUT OF HIS WAY AND WE HAD TO GO AROUND. IT'S A LOUSY DEAL TO BE ON AN INSTRUMENT APCH AND HAVE TO GO AROUND FOR AN ACFT ON A VIS APCH. THE MORAL TO THE STORY IS DON'T ACCEPT A VIS APCH UNLESS YOU HAVE PRECEEDING TFC (THERE WAS NONE IN THIS CASE) OR RWY IN SIGHT.

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.