Narrative:

Aircraft #1 was vectored to a base heading 10000 ft above aircraft #2 to a separate runway. Aircraft #1 reported aircraft #2 in sight and was told to 'pass above #2' and 'cleared visual approach' to his runway. #1 started to get close to aircraft #2. A TA was made to #1 asking if he still had #2 in sight. Aircraft #1 affirmed still having aircraft #2 in sight. Aircraft #1 was issued a frequency changed to the tower. On jul/xa/04 we received a pilot complaint from aircraft #1. The situation was reviewed and the arrival controller received an operational error for not saying 'maintain visual separation.' the pilot complaint also stated that he would have flown the approach different in hindsight. Supplemental information from acn 624399: on downwind (cedar creek arrival) we were being vectored for runway 17C approach and landing. We were given left base turn to 260 degree heading and cleared to 4000 ft. MD80 traffic was pointed out to our right (north). We were asked if we had the traffic and asked if we saw the airport. We were cleared for a visual. MD80 passed beneath us as we continued the turn past 260 degree heading. As MD80 passed beneath us we received 'traffic, traffic' as well as 'monitor vertical speed.' since we were in a left bank, as MD80 passed beneath us, it looked close. I don't believe that we had a conflict, but there is a possibility that we could have. What I would do differently is maintain the 260 degree heading, even while on visual, to keep our proximity time to a minimum. MD80 was on visual for runway 17L and we were being maneuvered over the top. I would have been just as happy to let the MD80 have runway 17C, and would have accepted runway 17L so as to not cross over. After being cleared for the visual, first officer continued past 260 degree heading.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 CREW ON BASE FOR RWY 17C LNDG DFW RPTED SIGHTING AN MD80 ON THEIR R LNDG RWY 17L. THE CREW WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE MD80.

Narrative: ACFT #1 WAS VECTORED TO A BASE HDG 10000 FT ABOVE ACFT #2 TO A SEPARATE RWY. ACFT #1 RPTED ACFT #2 IN SIGHT AND WAS TOLD TO 'PASS ABOVE #2' AND 'CLRED VISUAL APCH' TO HIS RWY. #1 STARTED TO GET CLOSE TO ACFT #2. A TA WAS MADE TO #1 ASKING IF HE STILL HAD #2 IN SIGHT. ACFT #1 AFFIRMED STILL HAVING ACFT #2 IN SIGHT. ACFT #1 WAS ISSUED A FREQ CHANGED TO THE TWR. ON JUL/XA/04 WE RECEIVED A PLT COMPLAINT FROM ACFT #1. THE SIT WAS REVIEWED AND THE ARR CTLR RECEIVED AN OPERROR FOR NOT SAYING 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.' THE PLT COMPLAINT ALSO STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE FLOWN THE APCH DIFFERENT IN HINDSIGHT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 624399: ON DOWNWIND (CEDAR CREEK ARR) WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR RWY 17C APCH AND LNDG. WE WERE GIVEN L BASE TURN TO 260 DEG HDG AND CLRED TO 4000 FT. MD80 TFC WAS POINTED OUT TO OUR R (N). WE WERE ASKED IF WE HAD THE TFC AND ASKED IF WE SAW THE ARPT. WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL. MD80 PASSED BENEATH US AS WE CONTINUED THE TURN PAST 260 DEG HDG. AS MD80 PASSED BENEATH US WE RECEIVED 'TFC, TFC' AS WELL AS 'MONITOR VERT SPD.' SINCE WE WERE IN A L BANK, AS MD80 PASSED BENEATH US, IT LOOKED CLOSE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAD A CONFLICT, BUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD HAVE. WHAT I WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY IS MAINTAIN THE 260 DEG HDG, EVEN WHILE ON VISUAL, TO KEEP OUR PROX TIME TO A MINIMUM. MD80 WAS ON VISUAL FOR RWY 17L AND WE WERE BEING MANEUVERED OVER THE TOP. I WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS HAPPY TO LET THE MD80 HAVE RWY 17C, AND WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED RWY 17L SO AS TO NOT CROSS OVER. AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE VISUAL, FO CONTINUED PAST 260 DEG HDG.

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.