Air carrier light transport PIC follows wrong aircraft for visual approach after TA given.

Attributes
ACN	186816
Time
Date	199108
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cvg
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4500 msl bound upper : 7500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : cvg
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other other
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other other
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 110 flight time total : 4700 flight time type : 400
ASRS Report	186816
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : became reoriented other
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 1500 vertical : 2000
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

While being vectored for a visual approach to runway 18R at cvg, traffic to follow was pointed out at 1 O'clock and we were told to follow him. We saw the traffic a few moments earlier and were cleared for the visual approach when we acknowledged the traffic was in sight. At that time we descended out of 7000 ft for the approach and landing. Our base turn was made as the other aircraft (a company light transport) was abeam our wing. His altitude (at least when we first saw him) was about 4500 ft. On base leg, the controller advised us that we should extend our base leg because controller thought the spacing was closing up (ctrl also advised that we shouldn't extend the base too long because simultaneous approachs were being made to 18L). We weren't sure why controller was so concerned about spacing, because we clearly had the aircraft in front of us in sight. We were in trail by approximately 5 mi. The controller then advised us that controller may have to break us off the approach and resequence us. Controller then said we were directly over the aircraft we were to follow. This got our complete attention, to say the least. The aircraft then emerged from underneath us and moved to our 2 O'clock position. His altitude was approximately 2000 ft (or more) beneath us. We dropped flaps and gear and slowed to final approach speed to increase spacing. We landed about 3 mi in trail of the traffic. No evasive maneuvers were needed. Apparently, we had the wrong traffic in sight from the start. Our excessive downwind altitude (thanks to ATC) of 7000 ft precluded our seeing the correct traffic (which was down low at 2500 ft approximately). The fact that we saw traffic at precisely the position called by the controller only contributed to the mix up. As pilots, we should always ask for altitude information on traffic we are told to follow. Also, just because everything 'looks' right, the traffic you see may not be the correct one.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LTT PIC FOLLOWS WRONG ACFT FOR VISUAL APCH AFTER TA GIVEN.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 18R AT CVG, TFC TO FOLLOW WAS POINTED OUT AT 1 O'CLOCK AND WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW HIM. WE SAW THE TFC A FEW MOMENTS EARLIER AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH WHEN WE ACKNOWLEDGED THE TFC WAS IN SIGHT. AT THAT TIME WE DSNDED OUT OF 7000 FT FOR THE APCH AND LNDG. OUR BASE TURN WAS MADE AS THE OTHER ACFT (A COMPANY LTT) WAS ABEAM OUR WING. HIS ALT (AT LEAST WHEN WE FIRST SAW HIM) WAS ABOUT 4500 FT. ON BASE LEG, THE CTLR ADVISED US THAT WE SHOULD EXTEND OUR BASE LEG BECAUSE CTLR THOUGHT THE SPACING WAS CLOSING UP (CTRL ALSO ADVISED THAT WE SHOULDN'T EXTEND THE BASE TOO LONG BECAUSE SIMULTANEOUS APCHS WERE BEING MADE TO 18L). WE WEREN'T SURE WHY CTLR WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT SPACING, BECAUSE WE CLRLY HAD THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US IN SIGHT. WE WERE IN TRAIL BY APPROX 5 MI. THE CTLR THEN ADVISED US THAT CTLR MAY HAVE TO BREAK US OFF THE APCH AND RESEQUENCE US. CTLR THEN SAID WE WERE DIRECTLY OVER THE ACFT WE WERE TO FOLLOW. THIS GOT OUR COMPLETE ATTN, TO SAY THE LEAST. THE ACFT THEN EMERGED FROM UNDERNEATH US AND MOVED TO OUR 2 O'CLOCK POS. HIS ALT WAS APPROX 2000 FT (OR MORE) BENEATH US. WE DROPPED FLAPS AND GEAR AND SLOWED TO FINAL APCH SPD TO INCREASE SPACING. WE LANDED ABOUT 3 MI IN TRAIL OF THE TFC. NO EVASIVE MANEUVERS WERE NEEDED. APPARENTLY, WE HAD THE WRONG TFC IN SIGHT FROM THE START. OUR EXCESSIVE DOWNWIND ALT (THANKS TO ATC) OF 7000 FT PRECLUDED OUR SEEING THE CORRECT TFC (WHICH WAS DOWN LOW AT 2500 FT APPROX). THE FACT THAT WE SAW TFC AT PRECISELY THE POS CALLED BY THE CTLR ONLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE MIX UP. AS PLTS, WE SHOULD ALWAYS ASK FOR ALT INFO ON TFC WE ARE TOLD TO FOLLOW. ALSO, JUST BECAUSE EVERYTHING 'LOOKS' RIGHT, THE TFC YOU SEE MAY NOT BE THE CORRECT ONE.

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.