Narrative:

I was performing as captain on a flight from pit to phl. Approach control had vectored us for a visual approach to runway 27R. At approximately 9 NM from the airport, we were instructed to 'square your turn to final, cleared visual approach to runway 27R.' we complied and were subsequently transferred to tower. We advised tower that we were on a 7 mi final. Tower told us to slow to our final approach speed and that we were #2 behind an light transport Z. Simultaneously, the tower was controling a commuter flight that was approaching runway 35 (which intersects runway 27R at about 2000 ft from the approach end). At approximately 2 1/2 NM from the runway, we observed the light transport touching down on runway 27R. We continued and focused our attention on the light transport. Tower cleared us to land, however at about 200 ft AGL on short final, it appeared that the light transport would not clear the runway prior to our touchdown and we agreed a go around was warranted. At the same time, tower decided the commuter would not have adequate separation from our aircraft and instructed that aircraft to go around. We began our go around straight ahead and advised tower of our action. Tower advised the commuter aircraft of our go around. At that moment, we observed the commuter to our port side in approximately a 45 degree banked left turn at our altitude (approximately 200-300 ft) and about 600 ft laterally from us. We both subsequently reentered VFR patterns and landed on our originally planned runways. I feel the primary responsibility for this occurrence lies with the tower controller in that he delayed his decision to provide separation so long as to cause a potential disaster. Additionally, we should have been advised of the commuter's position so that we could have made our own determination as to potential conflict and would have been in a position to ensure our own separation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MAKES GAR AND CONFLICTS WITH A COMMUTER ACFT ALSO MAKING A GAR ON AN INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative: I WAS PERFORMING AS CAPT ON A FLT FROM PIT TO PHL. APCH CTL HAD VECTORED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27R. AT APPROX 9 NM FROM THE ARPT, WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO 'SQUARE YOUR TURN TO FINAL, CLRED VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27R.' WE COMPLIED AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO TWR. WE ADVISED TWR THAT WE WERE ON A 7 MI FINAL. TWR TOLD US TO SLOW TO OUR FINAL APCH SPD AND THAT WE WERE #2 BEHIND AN LTT Z. SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE TWR WAS CTLING A COMMUTER FLT THAT WAS APCHING RWY 35 (WHICH INTERSECTS RWY 27R AT ABOUT 2000 FT FROM THE APCH END). AT APPROX 2 1/2 NM FROM THE RWY, WE OBSERVED THE LTT TOUCHING DOWN ON RWY 27R. WE CONTINUED AND FOCUSED OUR ATTN ON THE LTT. TWR CLRED US TO LAND, HOWEVER AT ABOUT 200 FT AGL ON SHORT FINAL, IT APPEARED THAT THE LTT WOULD NOT CLR THE RWY PRIOR TO OUR TOUCHDOWN AND WE AGREED A GAR WAS WARRANTED. AT THE SAME TIME, TWR DECIDED THE COMMUTER WOULD NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM OUR ACFT AND INSTRUCTED THAT ACFT TO GAR. WE BEGAN OUR GAR STRAIGHT AHEAD AND ADVISED TWR OF OUR ACTION. TWR ADVISED THE COMMUTER ACFT OF OUR GAR. AT THAT MOMENT, WE OBSERVED THE COMMUTER TO OUR PORT SIDE IN APPROX A 45 DEG BANKED L TURN AT OUR ALT (APPROX 200-300 FT) AND ABOUT 600 FT LATERALLY FROM US. WE BOTH SUBSEQUENTLY REENTERED VFR PATTERNS AND LANDED ON OUR ORIGINALLY PLANNED RWYS. I FEEL THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS OCCURRENCE LIES WITH THE TWR CTLR IN THAT HE DELAYED HIS DECISION TO PROVIDE SEPARATION SO LONG AS TO CAUSE A POTENTIAL DISASTER. ADDITIONALLY, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE COMMUTER'S POS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE MADE OUR OWN DETERMINATION AS TO POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A POS TO ENSURE OUR OWN SEPARATION.

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.