Narrative:

I was flying as the first officer on a flight. The flight was uneventful through the descent. At approximately 30 mi out, we were given a heading to intercept the localizer to runway 10 and a descent clearance to 3000 ft and then subsequently cleared to 2000 ft. Approximately 5 mi on final, the tower controller asked us if we had the runway yet and we responded yes. At that point we were cleared for the visual approach to runway 10 and then cleared to land. Approximately 600 ft AGL I disconnected the autoplt and continued the approach manually. About 200 ft AGL tower said 'aircraft X go around.' I was looking at the runway which was clear. I wondered the reason for the go around. I pushed the power up to the go around detent. At that time a light twin engine aircraft filled my right windscreen. It appeared to be making an evasive maneuver away from us. Even though he was turning away from us it appeared as though his turn radius was still tracking in on us. I would estimate his vertical separation at 0 ft and horizontal separation at less than 100 ft. I then made an aggressive left turn to about 30 degrees of bank while initiating the go around procedure. I'm not sure whether my evasive maneuver was necessary, however, it was too close to call. We were subsequently cleared for the lagoon visual to runway 8 and then cleared to land runway 10. After landing the captain called tower and discussed the situation. Tower thought they cleared us to execute the lagoon visual to runway 8, we were cleared for the visual approach to runway 10. Had we been on the lagoon visual runway 8 and cleared to land runway 8, the same situation would have resulted. The turn from the localizer to runway 10 to align with runway 8 would have still resulted in an near midair collision, but we would have had 200 ft horizontal separation. Human factors: lack of traffic separation on behalf of ATC and lack of situational awareness on behalf of our crew. We were aware that there was other traffic making an approach to that runway, however, we were not given a TA by tower. This converging approach situation at sju is very dangerous and needs to be addressed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FLC FLYING AN A320 AT SJU RPTS CONFLICTING ATC INSTRUCTIONS DURING APCH RESULTING IN AN NMAC AND GAR.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING AS THE FO ON A FLT. THE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL THROUGH THE DSCNT. AT APPROX 30 MI OUT, WE WERE GIVEN A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE LOC TO RWY 10 AND A DSCNT CLRNC TO 3000 FT AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED TO 2000 FT. APPROX 5 MI ON FINAL, THE TWR CTLR ASKED US IF WE HAD THE RWY YET AND WE RESPONDED YES. AT THAT POINT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 10 AND THEN CLRED TO LAND. APPROX 600 FT AGL I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND CONTINUED THE APCH MANUALLY. ABOUT 200 FT AGL TWR SAID 'ACFT X GO AROUND.' I WAS LOOKING AT THE RWY WHICH WAS CLR. I WONDERED THE REASON FOR THE GAR. I PUSHED THE PWR UP TO THE GAR DETENT. AT THAT TIME A LIGHT TWIN ENG ACFT FILLED MY R WINDSCREEN. IT APPEARED TO BE MAKING AN EVASIVE MANEUVER AWAY FROM US. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS TURNING AWAY FROM US IT APPEARED AS THOUGH HIS TURN RADIUS WAS STILL TRACKING IN ON US. I WOULD ESTIMATE HIS VERT SEPARATION AT 0 FT AND HORIZ SEPARATION AT LESS THAN 100 FT. I THEN MADE AN AGGRESSIVE L TURN TO ABOUT 30 DEGS OF BANK WHILE INITIATING THE GAR PROC. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER MY EVASIVE MANEUVER WAS NECESSARY, HOWEVER, IT WAS TOO CLOSE TO CALL. WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR THE LAGOON VISUAL TO RWY 8 AND THEN CLRED TO LAND RWY 10. AFTER LNDG THE CAPT CALLED TWR AND DISCUSSED THE SIT. TWR THOUGHT THEY CLRED US TO EXECUTE THE LAGOON VISUAL TO RWY 8, WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 10. HAD WE BEEN ON THE LAGOON VISUAL RWY 8 AND CLRED TO LAND RWY 8, THE SAME SIT WOULD HAVE RESULTED. THE TURN FROM THE LOC TO RWY 10 TO ALIGN WITH RWY 8 WOULD HAVE STILL RESULTED IN AN NMAC, BUT WE WOULD HAVE HAD 200 FT HORIZ SEPARATION. HUMAN FACTORS: LACK OF TFC SEPARATION ON BEHALF OF ATC AND LACK OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ON BEHALF OF OUR CREW. WE WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS OTHER TFC MAKING AN APCH TO THAT RWY, HOWEVER, WE WERE NOT GIVEN A TA BY TWR. THIS CONVERGING APCH SIT AT SJU IS VERY DANGEROUS AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

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.