An small aircraft had an near midair collision with another in the traffic pattern.

Attributes
ACN	249675
Time
Date	199308
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mic
State Reference	MN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 500 agl bound upper : 500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : mic
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach other
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : go around
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 300 flight time total : 1900 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	249675
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	conflict : nmac other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : took evasive action other
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	vertical : 100
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified
Airport	other physical facility

Narrative:

Tower gave me traffic to follow on a 1 mi final. I reported him in sight and proceeded to start my base leg. Just before turning final I heard 'tower, I don't think your small aircraft X has me in sight, I'm going around.' I looked right and there was my traffic. I was cleared to land on runway 31R and the small aircraft Y I missed landed on runway 31L. Tower gave me traffic that was landing on runway 31R when they initially warned me of the aircraft. I think it would have been better to warn me of both aircraft so I would have looked further out on final for my traffic. Also, tower told me my traffic was on a 1 mi final when, in fact, he was on a 3 mi final. They don't have a BRITE scope so the local controller had to use his judgement which, in this case, created a hazard. Without a BRITE scope and parallel runways in use, it should be mandatory for local control to issue traffic to follow as well as any other traffic on the parallel runway which may be mistaken as traffic to follow. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: runways 31L/right are about 400 ft apart. Traffic is usually right hand for the right runway and left hand for the left runway, but this can be altered by the controller as the situation warrants. The reporter admits that he was looking at the wrong aircraft when he reported his traffic in sight. Microphone is the reporter's home base and he recognizes most of the controllers' voices. The reporter believes that the controller on duty at the time of this incident is new to microphone and may have been under instruction. When the other aircraft announced its intentions to go around, the reporter found it directly under his nose.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMA HAD AN NMAC WITH ANOTHER IN THE TFC PATTERN.

Narrative: TWR GAVE ME TFC TO FOLLOW ON A 1 MI FINAL. I RPTED HIM IN SIGHT AND PROCEEDED TO START MY BASE LEG. JUST BEFORE TURNING FINAL I HEARD 'TWR, I DON'T THINK YOUR SMA X HAS ME IN SIGHT, I'M GOING AROUND.' I LOOKED R AND THERE WAS MY TFC. I WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 31R AND THE SMA Y I MISSED LANDED ON RWY 31L. TWR GAVE ME TFC THAT WAS LNDG ON RWY 31R WHEN THEY INITIALLY WARNED ME OF THE ACFT. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO WARN ME OF BOTH ACFT SO I WOULD HAVE LOOKED FURTHER OUT ON FINAL FOR MY TFC. ALSO, TWR TOLD ME MY TFC WAS ON A 1 MI FINAL WHEN, IN FACT, HE WAS ON A 3 MI FINAL. THEY DON'T HAVE A BRITE SCOPE SO THE LCL CTLR HAD TO USE HIS JUDGEMENT WHICH, IN THIS CASE, CREATED A HAZARD. WITHOUT A BRITE SCOPE AND PARALLEL RWYS IN USE, IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR LCL CTL TO ISSUE TFC TO FOLLOW AS WELL AS ANY OTHER TFC ON THE PARALLEL RWY WHICH MAY BE MISTAKEN AS TFC TO FOLLOW. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RWYS 31L/R ARE ABOUT 400 FT APART. TFC IS USUALLY R HAND FOR THE R RWY AND L HAND FOR THE L RWY, BUT THIS CAN BE ALTERED BY THE CTLR AS THE SIT WARRANTS. THE RPTR ADMITS THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG ACFT WHEN HE RPTED HIS TFC IN SIGHT. MIC IS THE RPTR'S HOME BASE AND HE RECOGNIZES MOST OF THE CTLRS' VOICES. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE CTLR ON DUTY AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT IS NEW TO MIC AND MAY HAVE BEEN UNDER INSTRUCTION. WHEN THE OTHER ACFT ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTIONS TO GAR, THE RPTR FOUND IT DIRECTLY UNDER HIS NOSE.

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.