Narrative:

I was approaching slc international airport for landing. I was on an IFR flight plan, however, VMC existed. While being vectored downwind I was cleared to 8000 ft MSL. While at 8000 ft a B737 passed over head at 11000 ft (I believe) on an approximately heading of 130 degrees. The approach controller turned the B737 to a heading of 150 degrees (my heading) and cleared it down to 7000 ft MSL. Shortly thereafter, the controller called the B737 to me as traffic at 11 O'clock. I reported the traffic in sight and was told to expect a visual approach behind the B737 traffic. The controller then cleared the B737 for a visual approach to runway 34 at slc and asked me if I had that airplane in sight. I replied that I did have it in sight. I was then cleared for a visual approach to runway 35 at slc with instructions to cross behind and below the B737 for my landing on runway 35. Runways 34 and 35 are not parallel at slc, instead, the final approach leg for both runways begins over kearn NDB beacon. There is a 5 or 6 degree difference in runway headings. The runways are too close together to allow simultaneous ILS approachs. The B737 began a base leg left turn and continued descent. I began a base leg abeam of the aircraft intending to cross below and behind it. It became apparent the B737 had slightly overshot the final approach course on runway 34. I increased my descent rate in order to cross behind and below the aircraft. As I turned final for runway 35 I had to stay below the aircraft in order to keep it in sight. As the aircraft continued back to runway 34 centerline it began slowing for approach. As it slowed, the speed change allowed me to close from the right side and below the aircraft. I kept my speed up so that the pilots could see me and know that we were on final for runway 35, beside and below them. At no time did either aircraft present a collision hazard to the other. This is because I continued to remain below the flight path of the B737, otherwise, had I not done this, the 2 airplanes might have been too close together for comfort. In my opinion, the approach controller erred when he cleared the B737 down through my altitude and then cleared both of us for approachs. I erred by accepting the clearance. I should have advised the controller that I would continue downwind further so that both airplanes would not be on final for the respective runways at the same time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT SUPPLEMENTAL CARRIER HAS CLOSE PROX TO B737 ON APCH AT SLC.

Narrative: I WAS APCHING SLC INTL ARPT FOR LNDG. I WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN, HOWEVER, VMC EXISTED. WHILE BEING VECTORED DOWNWIND I WAS CLRED TO 8000 FT MSL. WHILE AT 8000 FT A B737 PASSED OVER HEAD AT 11000 FT (I BELIEVE) ON AN APPROX HDG OF 130 DEGS. THE APCH CTLR TURNED THE B737 TO A HDG OF 150 DEGS (MY HDG) AND CLRED IT DOWN TO 7000 FT MSL. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE CTLR CALLED THE B737 TO ME AS TFC AT 11 O'CLOCK. I RPTED THE TFC IN SIGHT AND WAS TOLD TO EXPECT A VISUAL APCH BEHIND THE B737 TFC. THE CTLR THEN CLRED THE B737 FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34 AT SLC AND ASKED ME IF I HAD THAT AIRPLANE IN SIGHT. I REPLIED THAT I DID HAVE IT IN SIGHT. I WAS THEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 35 AT SLC WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO CROSS BEHIND AND BELOW THE B737 FOR MY LNDG ON RWY 35. RWYS 34 AND 35 ARE NOT PARALLEL AT SLC, INSTEAD, THE FINAL APCH LEG FOR BOTH RWYS BEGINS OVER KEARN NDB BEACON. THERE IS A 5 OR 6 DEG DIFFERENCE IN RWY HDGS. THE RWYS ARE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER TO ALLOW SIMULTANEOUS ILS APCHS. THE B737 BEGAN A BASE LEG L TURN AND CONTINUED DSCNT. I BEGAN A BASE LEG ABEAM OF THE ACFT INTENDING TO CROSS BELOW AND BEHIND IT. IT BECAME APPARENT THE B737 HAD SLIGHTLY OVERSHOT THE FINAL APCH COURSE ON RWY 34. I INCREASED MY DSCNT RATE IN ORDER TO CROSS BEHIND AND BELOW THE ACFT. AS I TURNED FINAL FOR RWY 35 I HAD TO STAY BELOW THE ACFT IN ORDER TO KEEP IT IN SIGHT. AS THE ACFT CONTINUED BACK TO RWY 34 CTRLINE IT BEGAN SLOWING FOR APCH. AS IT SLOWED, THE SPD CHANGE ALLOWED ME TO CLOSE FROM THE R SIDE AND BELOW THE ACFT. I KEPT MY SPD UP SO THAT THE PLTS COULD SEE ME AND KNOW THAT WE WERE ON FINAL FOR RWY 35, BESIDE AND BELOW THEM. AT NO TIME DID EITHER ACFT PRESENT A COLLISION HAZARD TO THE OTHER. THIS IS BECAUSE I CONTINUED TO REMAIN BELOW THE FLT PATH OF THE B737, OTHERWISE, HAD I NOT DONE THIS, THE 2 AIRPLANES MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO CLOSE TOGETHER FOR COMFORT. IN MY OPINION, THE APCH CTLR ERRED WHEN HE CLRED THE B737 DOWN THROUGH MY ALT AND THEN CLRED BOTH OF US FOR APCHS. I ERRED BY ACCEPTING THE CLRNC. I SHOULD HAVE ADVISED THE CTLR THAT I WOULD CONTINUE DOWNWIND FURTHER SO THAT BOTH AIRPLANES WOULD NOT BE ON FINAL FOR THE RESPECTIVE RWYS AT THE SAME TIME.

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.