Small aircraft pilot was cleared to land with a BA31 sequenced to follow. The BA31 overtook the smal...

Attributes
ACN	395672
Time
Date	199803
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sbp
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 700 msl bound upper : 700
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sbp
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Cessna 152
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	None
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Jetstream 31
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 2000 flight time type : 900
ASRS Report	395672
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance other
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 0 vertical : 500
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

While turning onto a left base for runway 29 at sbp, the tower instructed aircraft Y, who was on a right base, that they were #3 to follow us. Aircraft Y reported they did not have us in sight and asked the tower to call their base. As we turned onto final the tower instructed aircraft Y to turn right base, but failed to again inform them they are following traffic now on about a 3/4 mi final. After realizing that aircraft Y had not been instructed to follow us, I looked over my shoulder to see how far behind us they were. At that time, they were within 1 mi and we were on approximately a 1/2 mi final. I asked the tower if aircraft Y had us in sight. The tower asked aircraft Y if they had us in sight. They responded by saying 'we have the aircraft on the runway in sight.' at this point the tower instructed us to go around as we were now on a 1/4 mi final. I responded with 'negative' and advised the tower we were going to land. The runway was clear with no vehicles or other aircraft on the runway. The tower again instructed us to go around and again I instructed him we were going to land, since we had been cleared to land. The tower called for a third time as we were touching down to tell us to go around, and again I told him negative. This whole time aircraft Y was continuing on final behind us before he was finally told to go around. I believe this is an example of a breakdown of the controller's separation criteria for failing to inform aircraft Y to follow us, and failure of aircraft Y to see and avoid us. We had already been cleared to land. I also believe this shows the tower's failure to follow both the FARS (specifically 91.113(G)) and controller's handbook when he told the lower and aircraft closer to the runway to go around. My personal opinion and fear is that I would have been in aircraft Y's flight path if I had initiated a go around. The tower also failed to make sure that aircraft Y understood they were following another aircraft, and failed to ensure they had that aircraft in sight before allowing them to turn base.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT WAS CLRED TO LAND WITH A BA31 SEQUENCED TO FOLLOW. THE BA31 OVERTOOK THE SMA ON SHORT FINAL. LCL CTLR INSTRUCTED THE SMA TO EXECUTE A GAR. THE BA31 DID NOT HAVE THE SMA IN SIGHT. THE SMA PLT REFUSED THE GAR AND LANDED. THE BA31 EXECUTED A GAR. SMA PLT BELIEVES TWR DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER FAR 91 PT 113 TO INSTRUCT HIM TO GAR.

Narrative: WHILE TURNING ONTO A L BASE FOR RWY 29 AT SBP, THE TWR INSTRUCTED ACFT Y, WHO WAS ON A R BASE, THAT THEY WERE #3 TO FOLLOW US. ACFT Y RPTED THEY DID NOT HAVE US IN SIGHT AND ASKED THE TWR TO CALL THEIR BASE. AS WE TURNED ONTO FINAL THE TWR INSTRUCTED ACFT Y TO TURN R BASE, BUT FAILED TO AGAIN INFORM THEM THEY ARE FOLLOWING TFC NOW ON ABOUT A 3/4 MI FINAL. AFTER REALIZING THAT ACFT Y HAD NOT BEEN INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW US, I LOOKED OVER MY SHOULDER TO SEE HOW FAR BEHIND US THEY WERE. AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE WITHIN 1 MI AND WE WERE ON APPROX A 1/2 MI FINAL. I ASKED THE TWR IF ACFT Y HAD US IN SIGHT. THE TWR ASKED ACFT Y IF THEY HAD US IN SIGHT. THEY RESPONDED BY SAYING 'WE HAVE THE ACFT ON THE RWY IN SIGHT.' AT THIS POINT THE TWR INSTRUCTED US TO GAR AS WE WERE NOW ON A 1/4 MI FINAL. I RESPONDED WITH 'NEGATIVE' AND ADVISED THE TWR WE WERE GOING TO LAND. THE RWY WAS CLR WITH NO VEHICLES OR OTHER ACFT ON THE RWY. THE TWR AGAIN INSTRUCTED US TO GAR AND AGAIN I INSTRUCTED HIM WE WERE GOING TO LAND, SINCE WE HAD BEEN CLRED TO LAND. THE TWR CALLED FOR A THIRD TIME AS WE WERE TOUCHING DOWN TO TELL US TO GAR, AND AGAIN I TOLD HIM NEGATIVE. THIS WHOLE TIME ACFT Y WAS CONTINUING ON FINAL BEHIND US BEFORE HE WAS FINALLY TOLD TO GAR. I BELIEVE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A BREAKDOWN OF THE CTLR'S SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR FAILING TO INFORM ACFT Y TO FOLLOW US, AND FAILURE OF ACFT Y TO SEE AND AVOID US. WE HAD ALREADY BEEN CLRED TO LAND. I ALSO BELIEVE THIS SHOWS THE TWR'S FAILURE TO FOLLOW BOTH THE FARS (SPECIFICALLY 91.113(G)) AND CTLR'S HANDBOOK WHEN HE TOLD THE LOWER AND ACFT CLOSER TO THE RWY TO GAR. MY PERSONAL OPINION AND FEAR IS THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ACFT Y'S FLT PATH IF I HAD INITIATED A GAR. THE TWR ALSO FAILED TO MAKE SURE THAT ACFT Y UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE FOLLOWING ANOTHER ACFT, AND FAILED TO ENSURE THEY HAD THAT ACFT IN SIGHT BEFORE ALLOWING THEM TO TURN BASE.

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.