Narrative:

Air carrier X landing phx. We were descending through 6000' MSL and then cleared for visibility landing runway 26R. Using DME as my point to configure, I was descending and slowing for visibility. Used 3100' MSL over VOR for visibility point and to line up with runway 26R. Tower cleared us for visibility runway 26R, but said nothing of traffic to follow or conflict. I had aircraft spotted coming up from south for landing (we were southbound). At 4 DME tower said to turn left to 150 degrees and follow air carrier Y to runway 26R. Judging from many times into phx since air carrier Y was coming from south, we thought he was cleared to land on runway 26L (which may have been the case, then other tower cleared him on 26R). Tower called and told us to turn to 150 degree heading and said, 'we tried to call you earlier.' we informed him this was first time we heard from him except to tell us, 'cleared to land runway 26R.' we turned to 150 degrees and continued to configure for landing. Tower said, 'turn right and cleared to land runway 26R behind air carrier Y.' meanwhile another aircraft was northbound (as was air carrier Y) and turning visibility for runway 26L. As we started our turn with new aircraft in sight from 150 degrees back around to 260 degrees, still configuring for landing and watching the new aircraft from south, we both turned final to airport. The airport has parallel runway 26L runway 26R separated by approximately 4000'. I feel that the controllers were either too busy or lax in their instructions for these 3 coming to airport at approximately same time. We completed our turn and lined up with 26R and continued to normal landing on runway 26R. Summary: night visibility with bright landing lights distort closing range on human eyes. Communication with tower (who use 2 different frequencys for parallel runways as does phx) become slow at times as they are talking with each other, then have to communication with the aircraft. These twin frequencys at times are worked by 1 controller which may have been the case here. Also, we the flight crew could have asked about air carrier Y for our # instead of assuming he was heading runway 26L. Using approach at phx so that aircraft lining up with 26L/26R don't pass so near to VOR to line up on final. Tower controllers and flight crews should pay more attention to possible conflicts on final.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X HAD AIRBORNE CONFLICT WITH ACR Y ON FINAL APCH TO PHX. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative: ACR X LNDG PHX. WE WERE DSNDING THROUGH 6000' MSL AND THEN CLRED FOR VIS LNDG RWY 26R. USING DME AS MY POINT TO CONFIGURE, I WAS DSNDING AND SLOWING FOR VIS. USED 3100' MSL OVER VOR FOR VIS POINT AND TO LINE UP WITH RWY 26R. TWR CLRED US FOR VIS RWY 26R, BUT SAID NOTHING OF TFC TO FOLLOW OR CONFLICT. I HAD ACFT SPOTTED COMING UP FROM S FOR LNDG (WE WERE SBND). AT 4 DME TWR SAID TO TURN LEFT TO 150 DEGS AND FOLLOW ACR Y TO RWY 26R. JUDGING FROM MANY TIMES INTO PHX SINCE ACR Y WAS COMING FROM S, WE THOUGHT HE WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 26L (WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE, THEN OTHER TWR CLRED HIM ON 26R). TWR CALLED AND TOLD US TO TURN TO 150 DEG HDG AND SAID, 'WE TRIED TO CALL YOU EARLIER.' WE INFORMED HIM THIS WAS FIRST TIME WE HEARD FROM HIM EXCEPT TO TELL US, 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 26R.' WE TURNED TO 150 DEGS AND CONTINUED TO CONFIGURE FOR LNDG. TWR SAID, 'TURN RIGHT AND CLRED TO LAND RWY 26R BEHIND ACR Y.' MEANWHILE ANOTHER ACFT WAS NBND (AS WAS ACR Y) AND TURNING VIS FOR RWY 26L. AS WE STARTED OUR TURN WITH NEW ACFT IN SIGHT FROM 150 DEGS BACK AROUND TO 260 DEGS, STILL CONFIGURING FOR LNDG AND WATCHING THE NEW ACFT FROM S, WE BOTH TURNED FINAL TO ARPT. THE ARPT HAS PARALLEL RWY 26L RWY 26R SEPARATED BY APPROX 4000'. I FEEL THAT THE CTLRS WERE EITHER TOO BUSY OR LAX IN THEIR INSTRUCTIONS FOR THESE 3 COMING TO ARPT AT APPROX SAME TIME. WE COMPLETED OUR TURN AND LINED UP WITH 26R AND CONTINUED TO NORMAL LNDG ON RWY 26R. SUMMARY: NIGHT VIS WITH BRIGHT LNDG LIGHTS DISTORT CLOSING RANGE ON HUMAN EYES. COM WITH TWR (WHO USE 2 DIFFERENT FREQS FOR PARALLEL RWYS AS DOES PHX) BECOME SLOW AT TIMES AS THEY ARE TALKING WITH EACH OTHER, THEN HAVE TO COM WITH THE ACFT. THESE TWIN FREQS AT TIMES ARE WORKED BY 1 CTLR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE HERE. ALSO, WE THE FLT CREW COULD HAVE ASKED ABOUT ACR Y FOR OUR # INSTEAD OF ASSUMING HE WAS HDG RWY 26L. USING APCH AT PHX SO THAT ACFT LINING UP WITH 26L/26R DON'T PASS SO NEAR TO VOR TO LINE UP ON FINAL. TWR CTLRS AND FLT CREWS SHOULD PAY MORE ATTN TO POSSIBLE CONFLICTS ON FINAL.

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.