Narrative:

The following occurrence, upon reflection, has caused me continued concern. After being cleared #1 to land, with a jet as #2 to follow, my instructions from approach control were reversed. The jet was then #1 to land, and I was changed to #2 to land, following the jet, which was faster. Instead of receiving radar vectors for separation at night, I was instructed instead to maintain visual separation and cautioned about wake turbulence. Chain of events: approaching the columbus area at night, and after tuning in to ATIS, I expected to receive an ILS runway 28L approach. However, cmh approach control gave me a heading and reduced altitude to 2500 ft MSL. Getting closer, I was then instructed to make a visual approach. I was told I was #1 to land, and a jet would follow me as #2 to land. Continuing my heading, my instructions were then reversed because the jet's speed was faster. The jet would not be #1 to land, and I would now be #2 to land, following the jet. I was instructed to maintain visual separation from the jet and cautioned about wake turbulence. Asked if I had the jet in sight, I answered in the affirmative, believing that I saw the bright lights of the jet approaching in the darkness. I continued my heading. Only when the lights of the jet were shining down on me did I realize that what I had been watching in the dark night was not the approaching jet, but rather a very bright planet or STAR, and that the jet (rptedly 500 ft above me) was descending right on top of me. Approach control directed me to make an immediate 180 degree left turn. I complied, and was left on that heading until given radar vectors back to the field. Upon landing, I spoke with the ATC supervisor at cmh, who said, 'we saw the problem developing and held the jet at 3000 ft MSL until he passed over you. We're not filing a report unless the pilot of the jet does.' conclusions and recommendations: I have thought about this chain of events for several days. In the interest of safety, and to avoid a recurrence to someone else, I would recommend the following: 1) when a plane is already in a landing sequence position, and that landing sequence position is changed -- at night -- I believe ATC should provide a vector to make certain that the aircraft stays clear of traffic. I do not feel it is prudent to expect a pilot to identify another aircraft, and be able to judge its distance and speed in the darkness instead of providing a vector. 2) the 180 degree left turn I was instructed to make after the jet had passed over me placed me at further risk, as I could have flown directly over the jet's wingtip vortices.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER BEING CLRED #1 FOR LNDG, AT NIGHT, AN ACR JET WAS GAINING ON RPTR SO APCH CTLR HAD RPTR PLANNED #2 BEHIND THE JET. BUT, WHEN ASKING RPTR IF HE HAD TFC AND TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION, HE THOUGHT HE SAW IT WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE A STAR. JET PASSED OVER RPTR BECAUSE APCH CTLR SAW DEVELOPING SIT AND KEPT THE JET ABOVE RPTR.

Narrative: THE FOLLOWING OCCURRENCE, UPON REFLECTION, HAS CAUSED ME CONTINUED CONCERN. AFTER BEING CLRED #1 TO LAND, WITH A JET AS #2 TO FOLLOW, MY INSTRUCTIONS FROM APCH CTL WERE REVERSED. THE JET WAS THEN #1 TO LAND, AND I WAS CHANGED TO #2 TO LAND, FOLLOWING THE JET, WHICH WAS FASTER. INSTEAD OF RECEIVING RADAR VECTORS FOR SEPARATION AT NIGHT, I WAS INSTRUCTED INSTEAD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND CAUTIONED ABOUT WAKE TURB. CHAIN OF EVENTS: APCHING THE COLUMBUS AREA AT NIGHT, AND AFTER TUNING IN TO ATIS, I EXPECTED TO RECEIVE AN ILS RWY 28L APCH. HOWEVER, CMH APCH CTL GAVE ME A HDG AND REDUCED ALT TO 2500 FT MSL. GETTING CLOSER, I WAS THEN INSTRUCTED TO MAKE A VISUAL APCH. I WAS TOLD I WAS #1 TO LAND, AND A JET WOULD FOLLOW ME AS #2 TO LAND. CONTINUING MY HDG, MY INSTRUCTIONS WERE THEN REVERSED BECAUSE THE JET'S SPD WAS FASTER. THE JET WOULD NOT BE #1 TO LAND, AND I WOULD NOW BE #2 TO LAND, FOLLOWING THE JET. I WAS INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE JET AND CAUTIONED ABOUT WAKE TURB. ASKED IF I HAD THE JET IN SIGHT, I ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, BELIEVING THAT I SAW THE BRIGHT LIGHTS OF THE JET APCHING IN THE DARKNESS. I CONTINUED MY HDG. ONLY WHEN THE LIGHTS OF THE JET WERE SHINING DOWN ON ME DID I REALIZE THAT WHAT I HAD BEEN WATCHING IN THE DARK NIGHT WAS NOT THE APCHING JET, BUT RATHER A VERY BRIGHT PLANET OR STAR, AND THAT THE JET (RPTEDLY 500 FT ABOVE ME) WAS DSNDING RIGHT ON TOP OF ME. APCH CTL DIRECTED ME TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE 180 DEG L TURN. I COMPLIED, AND WAS LEFT ON THAT HDG UNTIL GIVEN RADAR VECTORS BACK TO THE FIELD. UPON LNDG, I SPOKE WITH THE ATC SUPVR AT CMH, WHO SAID, 'WE SAW THE PROB DEVELOPING AND HELD THE JET AT 3000 FT MSL UNTIL HE PASSED OVER YOU. WE'RE NOT FILING A RPT UNLESS THE PLT OF THE JET DOES.' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS FOR SEVERAL DAYS. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, AND TO AVOID A RECURRENCE TO SOMEONE ELSE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING: 1) WHEN A PLANE IS ALREADY IN A LNDG SEQUENCE POS, AND THAT LNDG SEQUENCE POS IS CHANGED -- AT NIGHT -- I BELIEVE ATC SHOULD PROVIDE A VECTOR TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE ACFT STAYS CLR OF TFC. I DO NOT FEEL IT IS PRUDENT TO EXPECT A PLT TO IDENT ANOTHER ACFT, AND BE ABLE TO JUDGE ITS DISTANCE AND SPD IN THE DARKNESS INSTEAD OF PROVIDING A VECTOR. 2) THE 180 DEG L TURN I WAS INSTRUCTED TO MAKE AFTER THE JET HAD PASSED OVER ME PLACED ME AT FURTHER RISK, AS I COULD HAVE FLOWN DIRECTLY OVER THE JET'S WINGTIP VORTICES.

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.