Potential conflict in approach procedure.

Attributes
ACN	242964
Time
Date	199306
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lga
State Reference	NY
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2800
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : lga artcc : rjtg
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : go around
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual approach : straight in
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 8450 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	242964
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time total : 12000
ASRS Report	242752
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : overshoot conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other other
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 3000 vertical : 300
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation Inter Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

While completing the flight from syr to lga, we were cleared to the maspeth tanks from over the east river due north of lga. We flew on a clearance over klga to the east river and then given a clearance to cross maspeth tanks at or above 2500 ft and cleared 'expressway visual' to runway 31. Upon changing to tower frequency, tower asked if we had an air carrier large transport in sight. My captain's response was 'no, but I'll probably see him in a second or so.' I continued the approach, the expressway visual approach to runway 31. Upon turning around shea, transitioning to the final, lga tower gave us a climb to 3000 ft, we complied. The other air carrier was straight in to runway 31, approximately 1 - 1 1/2 mi off the end of runway 31. We received a clearance back to maspeth tanks, at or above 2500 ft, then we were cleared for the 'expressway visual' and landed uneventfully. When asked by my captain 'what's going on' and also a comment by the captain asking the controller 'what's air carrier Y doing,' inferring he was not on the expressway visual. The controller said he or we were wondering the same thing. Supplemental information from acn 242752: ATC was very responsive when they saw that we were inside the other aircraft. I feel the other aircraft was primarily responsible for the incident. Had he flown the prescribed ground track we would not have been inside of him. Later I found out he may have been asked to extend his base.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN APCH PROC.

Narrative: WHILE COMPLETING THE FLT FROM SYR TO LGA, WE WERE CLRED TO THE MASPETH TANKS FROM OVER THE EAST RIVER DUE N OF LGA. WE FLEW ON A CLRNC OVER KLGA TO THE EAST RIVER AND THEN GIVEN A CLRNC TO CROSS MASPETH TANKS AT OR ABOVE 2500 FT AND CLRED 'EXPRESSWAY VISUAL' TO RWY 31. UPON CHANGING TO TWR FREQ, TWR ASKED IF WE HAD AN ACR LGT IN SIGHT. MY CAPT'S RESPONSE WAS 'NO, BUT I'LL PROBABLY SEE HIM IN A SECOND OR SO.' I CONTINUED THE APCH, THE EXPRESSWAY VISUAL APCH TO RWY 31. UPON TURNING AROUND SHEA, TRANSITIONING TO THE FINAL, LGA TWR GAVE US A CLB TO 3000 FT, WE COMPLIED. THE OTHER ACR WAS STRAIGHT IN TO RWY 31, APPROX 1 - 1 1/2 MI OFF THE END OF RWY 31. WE RECEIVED A CLRNC BACK TO MASPETH TANKS, AT OR ABOVE 2500 FT, THEN WE WERE CLRED FOR THE 'EXPRESSWAY VISUAL' AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. WHEN ASKED BY MY CAPT 'WHAT'S GOING ON' AND ALSO A COMMENT BY THE CAPT ASKING THE CTLR 'WHAT'S ACR Y DOING,' INFERRING HE WAS NOT ON THE EXPRESSWAY VISUAL. THE CTLR SAID HE OR WE WERE WONDERING THE SAME THING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 242752: ATC WAS VERY RESPONSIVE WHEN THEY SAW THAT WE WERE INSIDE THE OTHER ACFT. I FEEL THE OTHER ACFT WAS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCIDENT. HAD HE FLOWN THE PRESCRIBED GND TRACK WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSIDE OF HIM. LATER I FOUND OUT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ASKED TO EXTEND HIS BASE.

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.