Narrative:

Piloting small aircraft, arriving from east southwest (tununak) I initiated contact with bet tower 10 NM southwest. I had been monitoring the frequency (118.10) for approximately 10 NM prior to initial contact, as per my SOP. During this time an airlines medium large transport initiated communications with tower. I was aware that the medium large transport was approaching from the northeast and that its arrival would likely coincide with my arrival. I initially requested runway 36 based on wind information from ATIS broadcast. Moments after making my first call to tower (at 10 NM), new ATIS was announced. I listened on my secondary receiver, and, considering the new wind velocity (which more favored runway 29) and the pending sequencing conflict with the jet, suggested to tower that runway 29 would be acceptable, 'if that would help.' prior to the runway 29 request, I had been instructed to report 3 (or 2, don't remember precisely) NM southwest, for left traffic to runway 36, and follow the jet, which was not in sight as of yet. Just before crossing the airport periphery (near the old bia site), I received new instructions for runway 29 after requesting/suggesting I could utilize runway 29. The tower responded to my runway 29 request by approving it and instructing me to report downwind and look for the jet. As I was reading back the instructions I spotted the jet on a right downwind roughly abeam the runway 36 threshold. I was instructed to 'follow' the jet. I entered the left downwind leg for runway 29 close-in (nearly over the runway 36 threshold), maintaining visual contact with the jet at all times and maintaining altitude at 800 ft AGL. I did this based on prior experience in southern california as a flight instructor (2300 hours instruction given) while training students using the long beach airport (lgb). When in the pattern for runway 25L, pilots are instructed to and expected to maintain the downwind leg 'inside signal hill' (a geographical landmark), in other words, 'close-in.' the purpose of this procedure is to allow jets approaching runway 30 (see diagram) to pass safely below as they approach the threshold of runway 30L often with another airplane directly above on the left downwind for runway 25L. I interpreted the instruction, 'follow the jet' to mean, allow the jet to land first. I did not consider this to be anything approaching a 'near miss' or even, 'incident.' however, the pilot of the medium large transport asked the tower, during rollout, if I was supposed to pass in front of the airliner. The tower responded in the negative. The tower then added that I was 'no factor,' however. This alarmed me, and that is my reason for this report. It would have been more helpful if ATC had advised me to 'pass behind the jet.'

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA CROSSES APCH PATH OF MLG FOR INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative: PILOTING SMA, ARRIVING FROM E SW (TUNUNAK) I INITIATED CONTACT WITH BET TWR 10 NM SW. I HAD BEEN MONITORING THE FREQ (118.10) FOR APPROX 10 NM PRIOR TO INITIAL CONTACT, AS PER MY SOP. DURING THIS TIME AN AIRLINES MLG INITIATED COMS WITH TWR. I WAS AWARE THAT THE MLG WAS APCHING FROM THE NE AND THAT ITS ARR WOULD LIKELY COINCIDE WITH MY ARR. I INITIALLY REQUESTED RWY 36 BASED ON WIND INFO FROM ATIS BROADCAST. MOMENTS AFTER MAKING MY FIRST CALL TO TWR (AT 10 NM), NEW ATIS WAS ANNOUNCED. I LISTENED ON MY SECONDARY RECEIVER, AND, CONSIDERING THE NEW WIND VELOCITY (WHICH MORE FAVORED RWY 29) AND THE PENDING SEQUENCING CONFLICT WITH THE JET, SUGGESTED TO TWR THAT RWY 29 WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, 'IF THAT WOULD HELP.' PRIOR TO THE RWY 29 REQUEST, I HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO RPT 3 (OR 2, DON'T REMEMBER PRECISELY) NM SW, FOR L TFC TO RWY 36, AND FOLLOW THE JET, WHICH WAS NOT IN SIGHT AS OF YET. JUST BEFORE XING THE ARPT PERIPHERY (NEAR THE OLD BIA SITE), I RECEIVED NEW INSTRUCTIONS FOR RWY 29 AFTER REQUESTING/SUGGESTING I COULD UTILIZE RWY 29. THE TWR RESPONDED TO MY RWY 29 REQUEST BY APPROVING IT AND INSTRUCTING ME TO RPT DOWNWIND AND LOOK FOR THE JET. AS I WAS READING BACK THE INSTRUCTIONS I SPOTTED THE JET ON A R DOWNWIND ROUGHLY ABEAM THE RWY 36 THRESHOLD. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO 'FOLLOW' THE JET. I ENTERED THE L DOWNWIND LEG FOR RWY 29 CLOSE-IN (NEARLY OVER THE RWY 36 THRESHOLD), MAINTAINING VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE JET AT ALL TIMES AND MAINTAINING ALT AT 800 FT AGL. I DID THIS BASED ON PRIOR EXPERIENCE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AS A FLT INSTRUCTOR (2300 HRS INSTRUCTION GIVEN) WHILE TRAINING STUDENTS USING THE LONG BEACH ARPT (LGB). WHEN IN THE PATTERN FOR RWY 25L, PLTS ARE INSTRUCTED TO AND EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN THE DOWNWIND LEG 'INSIDE SIGNAL HILL' (A GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMARK), IN OTHER WORDS, 'CLOSE-IN.' THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROC IS TO ALLOW JETS APCHING RWY 30 (SEE DIAGRAM) TO PASS SAFELY BELOW AS THEY APCH THE THRESHOLD OF RWY 30L OFTEN WITH ANOTHER AIRPLANE DIRECTLY ABOVE ON THE L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 25L. I INTERPRETED THE INSTRUCTION, 'FOLLOW THE JET' TO MEAN, ALLOW THE JET TO LAND FIRST. I DID NOT CONSIDER THIS TO BE ANYTHING APCHING A 'NEAR MISS' OR EVEN, 'INCIDENT.' HOWEVER, THE PLT OF THE MLG ASKED THE TWR, DURING ROLLOUT, IF I WAS SUPPOSED TO PASS IN FRONT OF THE AIRLINER. THE TWR RESPONDED IN THE NEGATIVE. THE TWR THEN ADDED THAT I WAS 'NO FACTOR,' HOWEVER. THIS ALARMED ME, AND THAT IS MY REASON FOR THIS RPT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE HELPFUL IF ATC HAD ADVISED ME TO 'PASS BEHIND THE JET.'

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.