Narrative:

On ILS approach to runway 25L at lax, in visual conditions. While working hard to make all crossing restrs on the civet arrival and runway 25L ILS approach we were asked to keep our speed up. Inside of 'hunda' we were told to maintain at least 180 KTS to the marker and contact tower. While still on frequency I heard approach ask commuter if they had 'the large transport in sight.' they answered 'yes.' he was cleared as follows: 'cleared visual approach to runway 25R, do not pass the large transport.' this clearance was different from what I have heard in the past. As we approached the marker and configured for landing, I got a visual on a brasilia off my left side heading north toward us. We stabilized on the approach and shortly thereafter at +/- 1400 ft our TCASII flashed traffic, traffic (twice), and then descend, descend!! First officer nosed over to 1000 FPM then added power slightly to accelerate. (I remembered the other clearance and somewhat anticipated this unwarranted intrusion!) the expected commuter intruder came into view in the first officer's side window descending and pulling into the front windshield before settling back to abeam our wingtip. We recovered our stability by 800 ft and landed simultaneously. 1) how much overtake speed did this aircraft have? 2) how close to us did it pass? Behind? Over? 3) did it always have us in sight? 4) was the crew trained in rejoin techniques? Did they plan and brief this maneuver and have breakout options planned? 5) why the heck do I have to ask these unnecessary questions? On the ground I called and talked to the captain at commuter air carrier. He understood my pique and stated his problems of responding to corporate policy to make schedule and the difficulties of riding in wake turbulence behind me. Air carrier has included on our flight plans a statement of close proximity aircraft while flying into lax. And this note suggests a PA to assure passenger that there is nothing to worry about. Is this wishful thinking or corporate complicity for 'on time performance' and 'airport capacity expansion?' I have taught formation procedures in the military and under other circumstances would relish the chance to take these young fellers to school. I believe the staggered approach procedure in sfo is a safer operation than this, and the statement that 'little planes and big planes don't mix.' someone without the right stuff is going to lose one.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 ON APCH LAX RWY 25L HEARD COMMUTER ADVISED TO KEEP B757 IN SIGHT AND NOT TO PASS. GOT TCASII RA TO DSND AND NOTED COMMUTER FLYING WINGTIP TO WINGTIP. BOTH ACFT LANDED AT THE SAME TIME.

Narrative: ON ILS APCH TO RWY 25L AT LAX, IN VISUAL CONDITIONS. WHILE WORKING HARD TO MAKE ALL XING RESTRS ON THE CIVET ARR AND RWY 25L ILS APCH WE WERE ASKED TO KEEP OUR SPD UP. INSIDE OF 'HUNDA' WE WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST 180 KTS TO THE MARKER AND CONTACT TWR. WHILE STILL ON FREQ I HEARD APCH ASK COMMUTER IF THEY HAD 'THE LGT IN SIGHT.' THEY ANSWERED 'YES.' HE WAS CLRED AS FOLLOWS: 'CLRED VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25R, DO NOT PASS THE LGT.' THIS CLRNC WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD IN THE PAST. AS WE APCHED THE MARKER AND CONFIGURED FOR LNDG, I GOT A VISUAL ON A BRASILIA OFF MY L SIDE HEADING N TOWARD US. WE STABILIZED ON THE APCH AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER AT +/- 1400 FT OUR TCASII FLASHED TFC, TFC (TWICE), AND THEN DSND, DSND!! FO NOSED OVER TO 1000 FPM THEN ADDED PWR SLIGHTLY TO ACCELERATE. (I REMEMBERED THE OTHER CLRNC AND SOMEWHAT ANTICIPATED THIS UNWARRANTED INTRUSION!) THE EXPECTED COMMUTER INTRUDER CAME INTO VIEW IN THE FO'S SIDE WINDOW DSNDING AND PULLING INTO THE FRONT WINDSHIELD BEFORE SETTLING BACK TO ABEAM OUR WINGTIP. WE RECOVERED OUR STABILITY BY 800 FT AND LANDED SIMULTANEOUSLY. 1) HOW MUCH OVERTAKE SPD DID THIS ACFT HAVE? 2) HOW CLOSE TO US DID IT PASS? BEHIND? OVER? 3) DID IT ALWAYS HAVE US IN SIGHT? 4) WAS THE CREW TRAINED IN REJOIN TECHNIQUES? DID THEY PLAN AND BRIEF THIS MANEUVER AND HAVE BREAKOUT OPTIONS PLANNED? 5) WHY THE HECK DO I HAVE TO ASK THESE UNNECESSARY QUESTIONS? ON THE GND I CALLED AND TALKED TO THE CAPT AT COMMUTER ACR. HE UNDERSTOOD MY PIQUE AND STATED HIS PROBS OF RESPONDING TO CORPORATE POLICY TO MAKE SCHEDULE AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF RIDING IN WAKE TURB BEHIND ME. ACR HAS INCLUDED ON OUR FLT PLANS A STATEMENT OF CLOSE PROX ACFT WHILE FLYING INTO LAX. AND THIS NOTE SUGGESTS A PA TO ASSURE PAX THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. IS THIS WISHFUL THINKING OR CORPORATE COMPLICITY FOR 'ON TIME PERFORMANCE' AND 'ARPT CAPACITY EXPANSION?' I HAVE TAUGHT FORMATION PROCS IN THE MIL AND UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD RELISH THE CHANCE TO TAKE THESE YOUNG FELLERS TO SCHOOL. I BELIEVE THE STAGGERED APCH PROC IN SFO IS A SAFER OP THAN THIS, AND THE STATEMENT THAT 'LITTLE PLANES AND BIG PLANES DON'T MIX.' SOMEONE WITHOUT THE RIGHT STUFF IS GOING TO LOSE ONE.

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.