Narrative:

On approach to addison, dfw regional approach instructed me to enter downwind. Approach indicated 2 cessna aircraft on final. I indicated I had visual on one cessna aircraft, on very short final (near threshold), but not the other. I then saw a second cessna aircraft on 2-3 mi final and advised approach. Approach cleared me to follow that aircraft, and cleared me for the visual approach. No mention was made of other aircraft. I began a base turn behind the second aircraft and switched to tower. Tower immediately advised me that I should have been on downwind, that there was another aircraft on approach. I advised that I was cleared for the visual behind the cessna. Tower instructed me to fly through the final approach course for a 180 degree turn, the third cessna had me in sight. Tower then brought me around for landing. This was a case of miscom. I was not aware of the third aircraft, or approach was not aware of the airplane on short final. In any event, from my viewpoint, there were really 3 aircraft, not 2, and I placed too much reliance in ATC's traffic advice in the busy terminal environment. I thought I communicated well when I indicated that I saw a plane on short final, but apparently there was some confusion as to the exact number of aircraft in the pattern. It would have helped if approach had switched me to tower as I entered the downwind (so tower could sort it out and sequence planes), or if approach had indicated the distance from the runway for each of the other aircraft. If that had been done, I would have known -- for certain -- that the plane I saw on short final was not the same plane that approach was discussing on final. Alternatively, approach or tower could have called my base. In addition, the cessna involved in the near miss did not have its landing light on, making it harder to see. Use of landing lights helps recognition in a crowded pattern. While it's great to have landed safely, better communication could help avoid this issue next time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AERO COMMANDER, AC11 PLT TURNED BASE TOO EARLY IN FRONT OF A CESSNA ON FINAL DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ACFT TO FOLLOW BY APCH CTLR. THE TWR CTLR NOTICED THE PROB AND REDIRECTED HIM BEHIND THE ACFT ON FINAL.

Narrative: ON APCH TO ADDISON, DFW REGIONAL APCH INSTRUCTED ME TO ENTER DOWNWIND. APCH INDICATED 2 CESSNA ACFT ON FINAL. I INDICATED I HAD VISUAL ON ONE CESSNA ACFT, ON VERY SHORT FINAL (NEAR THRESHOLD), BUT NOT THE OTHER. I THEN SAW A SECOND CESSNA ACFT ON 2-3 MI FINAL AND ADVISED APCH. APCH CLRED ME TO FOLLOW THAT ACFT, AND CLRED ME FOR THE VISUAL APCH. NO MENTION WAS MADE OF OTHER ACFT. I BEGAN A BASE TURN BEHIND THE SECOND ACFT AND SWITCHED TO TWR. TWR IMMEDIATELY ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON DOWNWIND, THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER ACFT ON APCH. I ADVISED THAT I WAS CLRED FOR THE VISUAL BEHIND THE CESSNA. TWR INSTRUCTED ME TO FLY THROUGH THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR A 180 DEG TURN, THE THIRD CESSNA HAD ME IN SIGHT. TWR THEN BROUGHT ME AROUND FOR LNDG. THIS WAS A CASE OF MISCOM. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD ACFT, OR APCH WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AIRPLANE ON SHORT FINAL. IN ANY EVENT, FROM MY VIEWPOINT, THERE WERE REALLY 3 ACFT, NOT 2, AND I PLACED TOO MUCH RELIANCE IN ATC'S TFC ADVICE IN THE BUSY TERMINAL ENVIRONMENT. I THOUGHT I COMMUNICATED WELL WHEN I INDICATED THAT I SAW A PLANE ON SHORT FINAL, BUT APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AS TO THE EXACT NUMBER OF ACFT IN THE PATTERN. IT WOULD HAVE HELPED IF APCH HAD SWITCHED ME TO TWR AS I ENTERED THE DOWNWIND (SO TWR COULD SORT IT OUT AND SEQUENCE PLANES), OR IF APCH HAD INDICATED THE DISTANCE FROM THE RWY FOR EACH OF THE OTHER ACFT. IF THAT HAD BEEN DONE, I WOULD HAVE KNOWN -- FOR CERTAIN -- THAT THE PLANE I SAW ON SHORT FINAL WAS NOT THE SAME PLANE THAT APCH WAS DISCUSSING ON FINAL. ALTERNATIVELY, APCH OR TWR COULD HAVE CALLED MY BASE. IN ADDITION, THE CESSNA INVOLVED IN THE NEAR MISS DID NOT HAVE ITS LNDG LIGHT ON, MAKING IT HARDER TO SEE. USE OF LNDG LIGHTS HELPS RECOGNITION IN A CROWDED PATTERN. WHILE IT'S GREAT TO HAVE LANDED SAFELY, BETTER COM COULD HELP AVOID THIS ISSUE NEXT TIME.

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.