Narrative:

On 4 mi ILS final to runway 14L iah, tower called out 'helicopter traffic at 1 O'clock, 3 mi, he has you in sight and will pass behind.' on 2 mi final I found the traffic at 2 O'clock, 1/2 mi, slightly low. We had the traffic on TCASII as well, indicating 200 ft below us. His landing light was on and pointing directly at us. At this point it appeared to be on a direct collision course. 200 ft margin was not comfortable so I initiated a go around. I accelerated and leveled off. After a few seconds of his position being froze on my windscreen he started to slide aft. TCASII showed he passed 200 ft below and slightly aft. Visually I lost sight of him at 5 O'clock and low. We continued the approach and landed. I feel the helicopter pilot exercised extremely poor judgement in passing so close to my aircraft on short final. He misjudged his distance from me, his closure and his turn rate. He was in contact with iah tower and had permission to pass through tower's airspace. Iah tower did an excellent job in notifying us of the traffic and his intentions. However, from his (tower) perspective, he could not control nor judge the helicopter's maneuvering to pass behind us. I don't like maneuvering on short final to correct for another pilot's poor airmanship. I feel when I'm on an IFR clearance conducting an instrument approach ATC should keep all known traffic out of my way so I don't have to be distracted during the last few critical seconds of an approach. If that means 10 mi, great! 5 mi minimum! VFR traffic, IFR traffic, anybody given permission to cross the approach corridor to any active runway should do so at such a distance as to not distract, inhibit or impede landing traffic in any way, shape or form.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC STARTED GAR WHEN A HELI CAME DIRECTLY AT THEM ON FINAL.

Narrative: ON 4 MI ILS FINAL TO RWY 14L IAH, TWR CALLED OUT 'HELI TFC AT 1 O'CLOCK, 3 MI, HE HAS YOU IN SIGHT AND WILL PASS BEHIND.' ON 2 MI FINAL I FOUND THE TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK, 1/2 MI, SLIGHTLY LOW. WE HAD THE TFC ON TCASII AS WELL, INDICATING 200 FT BELOW US. HIS LNDG LIGHT WAS ON AND POINTING DIRECTLY AT US. AT THIS POINT IT APPEARED TO BE ON A DIRECT COLLISION COURSE. 200 FT MARGIN WAS NOT COMFORTABLE SO I INITIATED A GAR. I ACCELERATED AND LEVELED OFF. AFTER A FEW SECONDS OF HIS POS BEING FROZE ON MY WINDSCREEN HE STARTED TO SLIDE AFT. TCASII SHOWED HE PASSED 200 FT BELOW AND SLIGHTLY AFT. VISUALLY I LOST SIGHT OF HIM AT 5 O'CLOCK AND LOW. WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND LANDED. I FEEL THE HELI PLT EXERCISED EXTREMELY POOR JUDGEMENT IN PASSING SO CLOSE TO MY ACFT ON SHORT FINAL. HE MISJUDGED HIS DISTANCE FROM ME, HIS CLOSURE AND HIS TURN RATE. HE WAS IN CONTACT WITH IAH TWR AND HAD PERMISSION TO PASS THROUGH TWR'S AIRSPACE. IAH TWR DID AN EXCELLENT JOB IN NOTIFYING US OF THE TFC AND HIS INTENTIONS. HOWEVER, FROM HIS (TWR) PERSPECTIVE, HE COULD NOT CTL NOR JUDGE THE HELI'S MANEUVERING TO PASS BEHIND US. I DON'T LIKE MANEUVERING ON SHORT FINAL TO CORRECT FOR ANOTHER PLT'S POOR AIRMANSHIP. I FEEL WHEN I'M ON AN IFR CLRNC CONDUCTING AN INST APCH ATC SHOULD KEEP ALL KNOWN TFC OUT OF MY WAY SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE DISTRACTED DURING THE LAST FEW CRITICAL SECONDS OF AN APCH. IF THAT MEANS 10 MI, GREAT! 5 MI MINIMUM! VFR TFC, IFR TFC, ANYBODY GIVEN PERMISSION TO CROSS THE APCH CORRIDOR TO ANY ACTIVE RWY SHOULD DO SO AT SUCH A DISTANCE AS TO NOT DISTRACT, INHIBIT OR IMPEDE LNDG TFC IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

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.