Narrative:

Approaching fxe from the southeast, we made an initial call at 7.5 NM from the airport. We were instructed to hold at a point 2 mi southeast of fxe. At 2.9 NM southeast, we requested a landing at the united states customs ramp. We were told to hold due to a gulfstream iv on a circling approach to the south. We observed the gulfstream southwest of the airport and advised that we had the gulfstream in sight and could maintain separation. A hold by us at the 2 mi position would have been a direct and dangerous conflict with the gulfstream on his downwind to base turn and made it impossible for us to maintain visual contact. We were given as traffic to the gulfstream, who reported us in sight. We were then instructed by the tower to turn to the south. We refused this instruction as it would have turned our aircraft into the path of the gulfstream. We were subsequently given clearance to land on the taxiway abeam the united states customs ramp. Subsequent telephone conversation with the pilot of the gulfstream revealed that he had had us in sight and that our course appeared to be no conflict to his aircraft. He also stated that he did not receive a TCASII RA on our aircraft. The purpose of our request to land was to resolve a collision conflict with the gulfstream as it was executing the circling approach. Contributing to the conflict was a strong surface wind from the northwest which would make it unlikely that the gulfstream would remain inside of 2 mi during its circle.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: S76 PLT REFUSED THE ATCT LCL INSTRUCTIONS OF WHERE TO HOLD FOR A G4 ON A CIRCLING APCH AT FXE.

Narrative: APCHING FXE FROM THE SE, WE MADE AN INITIAL CALL AT 7.5 NM FROM THE ARPT. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO HOLD AT A POINT 2 MI SE OF FXE. AT 2.9 NM SE, WE REQUESTED A LNDG AT THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS RAMP. WE WERE TOLD TO HOLD DUE TO A GULFSTREAM IV ON A CIRCLING APCH TO THE S. WE OBSERVED THE GULFSTREAM SW OF THE ARPT AND ADVISED THAT WE HAD THE GULFSTREAM IN SIGHT AND COULD MAINTAIN SEPARATION. A HOLD BY US AT THE 2 MI POS WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIRECT AND DANGEROUS CONFLICT WITH THE GULFSTREAM ON HIS DOWNWIND TO BASE TURN AND MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT. WE WERE GIVEN AS TFC TO THE GULFSTREAM, WHO RPTED US IN SIGHT. WE WERE THEN INSTRUCTED BY THE TWR TO TURN TO THE S. WE REFUSED THIS INSTRUCTION AS IT WOULD HAVE TURNED OUR ACFT INTO THE PATH OF THE GULFSTREAM. WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN CLRNC TO LAND ON THE TXWY ABEAM THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS RAMP. SUBSEQUENT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE PLT OF THE GULFSTREAM REVEALED THAT HE HAD HAD US IN SIGHT AND THAT OUR COURSE APPEARED TO BE NO CONFLICT TO HIS ACFT. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE A TCASII RA ON OUR ACFT. THE PURPOSE OF OUR REQUEST TO LAND WAS TO RESOLVE A COLLISION CONFLICT WITH THE GULFSTREAM AS IT WAS EXECUTING THE CIRCLING APCH. CONTRIBUTING TO THE CONFLICT WAS A STRONG SURFACE WIND FROM THE NW WHICH WOULD MAKE IT UNLIKELY THAT THE GULFSTREAM WOULD REMAIN INSIDE OF 2 MI DURING ITS CIRCLE.

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.