Narrative:

Small aircraft X was cleared for a straight in 'option' on runway 28R and executed a touch-and-go. Shortly after rotation, we received a hurried advisory from the tower advising us of traffic on short final on runway 24, the touchdown end of which is perhaps 100 ft southwest of the departure end of 28R. I looked to my right and saw small transport Y pass perhaps 75 ft below us. I estimate our altitude as 150 AGL. We never saw the other aircraft until it was too late to take evasive action. We continued our flight back to our home airport, and upon our arrival found a message asking us to call the control tower. The supervisor on duty advised that the other pilot was filing a near-collision report and needed certain information from us. I have since received 2 more phone calls from the tower asking me to elaborate on what happened. This was a controller error: 2 aircraft were cleared into the same space at the same time. We have learned that this was a training controller, as we suspected, since the 'short-final' advisory was a different voice. The relative position of the 2 aircraft made it virtually impossible for us to see the other aircraft, landing on a runway only 40 degrees different than ours with a faster ground speed approaching from behind. With the backgnd lights of the terminal building, we were probably difficult to see to the other pilot as well. I'm not sure, therefore, how the pilots could reasonably have avoided this conflict. Perhaps a better 'big-picture' mentality would have helped -- to listen more carefully not only to clrncs directed to us, but to others operating in the area, as well. Supplemental information from acn 206680: small transport Y was cleared for a visual approach to runway 24 by lansing approach control. When handed off to lansing tower, I informed them that I was on a visual approach to 24. Further in, I was requested to square off my base leg for traffic on parallel 28R, which I did and double-checked I was reduced to my final approach speed of 120 KTS. Did not hear from tower again until they asked if I had traffic, before I could acknowledge this, it passed in front very close. The passenger in back said I ducked and pushed the nose down, but that was just a reaction because it was too late for evasive action. The WX was clear and I never did spot this aircraft before the near miss. Was told later that it was a training aircraft with an instructor. I did report this incident to the lansing tower supervisor on duty, he took my statement and said he would file a report.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP INTERSECTING RWYS SMA X HAD NMAC LTSS FROM SMT Y. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: SMA X WAS CLRED FOR A STRAIGHT IN 'OPTION' ON RWY 28R AND EXECUTED A TOUCH-AND-GO. SHORTLY AFTER ROTATION, WE RECEIVED A HURRIED ADVISORY FROM THE TWR ADVISING US OF TFC ON SHORT FINAL ON RWY 24, THE TOUCHDOWN END OF WHICH IS PERHAPS 100 FT SW OF THE DEP END OF 28R. I LOOKED TO MY R AND SAW SMT Y PASS PERHAPS 75 FT BELOW US. I ESTIMATE OUR ALT AS 150 AGL. WE NEVER SAW THE OTHER ACFT UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION. WE CONTINUED OUR FLT BACK TO OUR HOME ARPT, AND UPON OUR ARR FOUND A MESSAGE ASKING US TO CALL THE CTL TWR. THE SUPVR ON DUTY ADVISED THAT THE OTHER PLT WAS FILING A NEAR-COLLISION RPT AND NEEDED CERTAIN INFO FROM US. I HAVE SINCE RECEIVED 2 MORE PHONE CALLS FROM THE TWR ASKING ME TO ELABORATE ON WHAT HAPPENED. THIS WAS A CTLR ERROR: 2 ACFT WERE CLRED INTO THE SAME SPACE AT THE SAME TIME. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT THIS WAS A TRAINING CTLR, AS WE SUSPECTED, SINCE THE 'SHORT-FINAL' ADVISORY WAS A DIFFERENT VOICE. THE RELATIVE POS OF THE 2 ACFT MADE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO SEE THE OTHER ACFT, LNDG ON A RWY ONLY 40 DEGS DIFFERENT THAN OURS WITH A FASTER GND SPD APCHING FROM BEHIND. WITH THE BACKGND LIGHTS OF THE TERMINAL BUILDING, WE WERE PROBABLY DIFFICULT TO SEE TO THE OTHER PLT AS WELL. I'M NOT SURE, THEREFORE, HOW THE PLTS COULD REASONABLY HAVE AVOIDED THIS CONFLICT. PERHAPS A BETTER 'BIG-PICTURE' MENTALITY WOULD HAVE HELPED -- TO LISTEN MORE CAREFULLY NOT ONLY TO CLRNCS DIRECTED TO US, BUT TO OTHERS OPERATING IN THE AREA, AS WELL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 206680: SMT Y WAS CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24 BY LANSING APCH CTL. WHEN HANDED OFF TO LANSING TWR, I INFORMED THEM THAT I WAS ON A VISUAL APCH TO 24. FURTHER IN, I WAS REQUESTED TO SQUARE OFF MY BASE LEG FOR TFC ON PARALLEL 28R, WHICH I DID AND DOUBLE-CHKED I WAS REDUCED TO MY FINAL APCH SPD OF 120 KTS. DID NOT HEAR FROM TWR AGAIN UNTIL THEY ASKED IF I HAD TFC, BEFORE I COULD ACKNOWLEDGE THIS, IT PASSED IN FRONT VERY CLOSE. THE PAX IN BACK SAID I DUCKED AND PUSHED THE NOSE DOWN, BUT THAT WAS JUST A REACTION BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE FOR EVASIVE ACTION. THE WX WAS CLR AND I NEVER DID SPOT THIS ACFT BEFORE THE NEAR MISS. WAS TOLD LATER THAT IT WAS A TRAINING ACFT WITH AN INSTRUCTOR. I DID RPT THIS INCIDENT TO THE LANSING TWR SUPVR ON DUTY, HE TOOK MY STATEMENT AND SAID HE WOULD FILE A RPT.

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.