Narrative:

During vectors for visual approach to pbi runway 9L, we were told to look for traffic that was in runway 9R closed traffic pattern for runway 9R. We looked for the cessna, but did not see him, and advised approach control thusly. We were cleared for the visual and switched to pbi tower. As we continued our final approach to runway 9L, we did not spot the cessna until at approximately 500 ft. The tower advised 'that traffic off your right will be turning final to runway 9R.' at that time, I saw him at our 2 O'clock position, in the landing confign, turning base to final, which put him parallel and very close to us. The spacing between these runways is minimal, and I seriously considered commanding a 'go around,' but did not. Since our approach speed was considerably faster than his, we passed him on short final, prior to making a normal landing. My first officer and I discussed the unusually close spacing and the possibility of a go around when we first saw the cessna. I believe that this was truly minimal separation. I know that the FAA has been violating pilots for passing aircraft. On parallel visual approachs, and that was part of my thought process -- but executing a go around in this situation would probably have been a greater hazard. Safety decisions should not be made on the basis of fear of certificate action, but often they are. I'm not sure how this could have been prevented. Pbi could have broken either aircraft. Out of the pattern, or given us s-turns or a 360 degree, but they are tasked with sequencing on predictable, mixed performance, fixed and rotary-winged traffic which is usually moderate to heavy volume into 2 closely spaced, parallel runways! All that pilots and controllers can do is watch the parallel traffic closely, and be ready to perform evasive maneuvers.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER ACFT ON VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCH PASSES SMA ON APCH FOR PARALLEL RWY.

Narrative: DURING VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCH TO PBI RWY 9L, WE WERE TOLD TO LOOK FOR TFC THAT WAS IN RWY 9R CLOSED TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 9R. WE LOOKED FOR THE CESSNA, BUT DID NOT SEE HIM, AND ADVISED APCH CTL THUSLY. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL AND SWITCHED TO PBI TWR. AS WE CONTINUED OUR FINAL APCH TO RWY 9L, WE DID NOT SPOT THE CESSNA UNTIL AT APPROX 500 FT. THE TWR ADVISED 'THAT TFC OFF YOUR R WILL BE TURNING FINAL TO RWY 9R.' AT THAT TIME, I SAW HIM AT OUR 2 O'CLOCK POS, IN THE LNDG CONFIGN, TURNING BASE TO FINAL, WHICH PUT HIM PARALLEL AND VERY CLOSE TO US. THE SPACING BTWN THESE RWYS IS MINIMAL, AND I SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED COMMANDING A 'GAR,' BUT DID NOT. SINCE OUR APCH SPD WAS CONSIDERABLY FASTER THAN HIS, WE PASSED HIM ON SHORT FINAL, PRIOR TO MAKING A NORMAL LNDG. MY FO AND I DISCUSSED THE UNUSUALLY CLOSE SPACING AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A GAR WHEN WE FIRST SAW THE CESSNA. I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS TRULY MINIMAL SEPARATION. I KNOW THAT THE FAA HAS BEEN VIOLATING PLTS FOR PASSING ACFT. ON PARALLEL VISUAL APCHS, AND THAT WAS PART OF MY THOUGHT PROCESS -- BUT EXECUTING A GAR IN THIS SIT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN A GREATER HAZARD. SAFETY DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF FEAR OF CERTIFICATE ACTION, BUT OFTEN THEY ARE. I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. PBI COULD HAVE BROKEN EITHER ACFT. OUT OF THE PATTERN, OR GIVEN US S-TURNS OR A 360 DEG, BUT THEY ARE TASKED WITH SEQUENCING ON PREDICTABLE, MIXED PERFORMANCE, FIXED AND ROTARY-WINGED TFC WHICH IS USUALLY MODERATE TO HVY VOLUME INTO 2 CLOSELY SPACED, PARALLEL RWYS! ALL THAT PLTS AND CTLRS CAN DO IS WATCH THE PARALLEL TFC CLOSELY, AND BE READY TO PERFORM EVASIVE MANEUVERS.

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.