PA60 on straight in visual approach failed to follow reporter's aircraft requiring evasive maneuver ...

Attributes
ACN	362147
Time
Date	199702
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ipt
State Reference	PA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ipt
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	PA-60 600 Aerostar
Operating Under FAR Part	other : unknown
Flight Phase	descent : approach other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	362147
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 12000 vertical : 750
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We contacted ipt tower and confirmed the visual approach to runway 27 and that we would be entering on a right downwind leg. The tower instructed us to call on the downwind leg which we subsequently did. We were then cleared, #1, to land on runway 27. As we slowed on the downwind leg and configured the aircraft for landing, piper PA60, aircraft #2, (aerostar), contacted the ipt tower and stated he was 7 mi east of ipt for a straight in visual approach to runway 27. He was advised that we (dornier 328) were making a right traffic visual approach to runway 27 and would soon be turning onto the base leg and that we were #1 for the field. He stated he did not yet see us. Ipt asked if we were in the turn to base yet and we responded that we had just made that turn and we confirmed that we were still cleared to land. In the meantime, aircraft #2 continued straight toward runway 27 and finally advised he saw us by commenting about a bomber pattern. Now, aircraft #2 was passing under our aircraft as we were about to start our turn to final. At this point the ipt tower cleared aircraft #2 to land on runway 30. In order to avoid the other aircraft we had to break off the approach. Just as we initiated a turn away from and above aircraft #2, our TCASII gave us a traffic avoidance warning. We advised tower we were abandoning the approach due to the conflict and would depart toward the southeast, away from the high terrain, and make a left turn back onto a visual final for runway 27. The tower concurred and asked us to report re-established, which we did. We also asked if there was any more traffic we should know about. There was none and we landed without further incident. To our knowledge, ipt tower did not issue instructions to aircraft #2 to take appropriate actions to avoid creating this traffic conflict. Also, aircraft #2 took no action to avoid the conflict even though he had been informed he was not #1 for the airport.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA60 ON STRAIGHT IN VISUAL APCH FAILED TO FOLLOW RPTR'S ACFT REQUIRING EVASIVE MANEUVER BY THE FLC TO AVOID THE ACFT WHILE ON BASE LEG. THE CTLR ATTEMPTED TO HANDLE SIT BY PUTTING THE PA60 ON A DIFFERENT RWY.

Narrative: WE CONTACTED IPT TWR AND CONFIRMED THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27 AND THAT WE WOULD BE ENTERING ON A R DOWNWIND LEG. THE TWR INSTRUCTED US TO CALL ON THE DOWNWIND LEG WHICH WE SUBSEQUENTLY DID. WE WERE THEN CLRED, #1, TO LAND ON RWY 27. AS WE SLOWED ON THE DOWNWIND LEG AND CONFIGURED THE ACFT FOR LNDG, PIPER PA60, ACFT #2, (AEROSTAR), CONTACTED THE IPT TWR AND STATED HE WAS 7 MI E OF IPT FOR A STRAIGHT IN VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27. HE WAS ADVISED THAT WE (DORNIER 328) WERE MAKING A R TFC VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27 AND WOULD SOON BE TURNING ONTO THE BASE LEG AND THAT WE WERE #1 FOR THE FIELD. HE STATED HE DID NOT YET SEE US. IPT ASKED IF WE WERE IN THE TURN TO BASE YET AND WE RESPONDED THAT WE HAD JUST MADE THAT TURN AND WE CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE STILL CLRED TO LAND. IN THE MEANTIME, ACFT #2 CONTINUED STRAIGHT TOWARD RWY 27 AND FINALLY ADVISED HE SAW US BY COMMENTING ABOUT A BOMBER PATTERN. NOW, ACFT #2 WAS PASSING UNDER OUR ACFT AS WE WERE ABOUT TO START OUR TURN TO FINAL. AT THIS POINT THE IPT TWR CLRED ACFT #2 TO LAND ON RWY 30. IN ORDER TO AVOID THE OTHER ACFT WE HAD TO BREAK OFF THE APCH. JUST AS WE INITIATED A TURN AWAY FROM AND ABOVE ACFT #2, OUR TCASII GAVE US A TFC AVOIDANCE WARNING. WE ADVISED TWR WE WERE ABANDONING THE APCH DUE TO THE CONFLICT AND WOULD DEPART TOWARD THE SE, AWAY FROM THE HIGH TERRAIN, AND MAKE A L TURN BACK ONTO A VISUAL FINAL FOR RWY 27. THE TWR CONCURRED AND ASKED US TO RPT RE-ESTABLISHED, WHICH WE DID. WE ALSO ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY MORE TFC WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT. THERE WAS NONE AND WE LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, IPT TWR DID NOT ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO ACFT #2 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS TO AVOID CREATING THIS TFC CONFLICT. ALSO, ACFT #2 TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE CONFLICT EVEN THOUGH HE HAD BEEN INFORMED HE WAS NOT #1 FOR THE ARPT.

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.

PA60 on straight in visual approach failed to follow reporter's aircraft requiring evasive maneuver by the flight crew to avoid the aircraft while on base leg. The controller attempted to handle situation by putting the PA60 on a different runway.