Narrative:

I previously was cleared for the cargo 1 visual approach by slc approach. Switched to slc tower right around doggy intersection and was following the prescribed routing. As is customary; right around amana intersection; tower told me to advise when I would be able to turn base for runway 32; which I did. (Very rarely is the full procedure followed.) tower told me about traffic on final for runway 35; and I responded that I was looking into the sun and probably wouldn't get visual on traffic. Tower told me to start the base; then changed his mind and told me to continue south for another mi before turning base; which I did. Sometime around here I was told to switch to tower on 118.30; and was told of other traffic. Once again I responded that I couldn't see traffic because of the sun. I was cleared to land on runway 32 and then told that traffic was at 1 O'clock position. I then had a brief terrifying glimpse of a metroliner that seemed to be less than 50 ft off my right; in a sharp bank turn to avoid me. 'Whoa; yeah; there he is!' was my response to tower. There was no time for me to take any evasive maneuver by the time I saw the metroliner. Another pilot; who was next in line on the cargo 1; later told me that he heard (while still on frequency 120.2); that the pilot of the metropolitan; had told tower that he had me in sight and was instructed to follow my aircraft. (Perhaps that can be corroborated on the tapes.) I landed and the tower apologized to me; but I was pretty shaken up and I don't really remember what the man said except that the metroliner was supposed to have turned the other way. A very similar event (though not nearly as close) occurred a few months ago to me with a beech 99 in almost exactly the same place and I know that other pilots have had other close calls. The other cargo operators who have signed on to the cargo 1 almost never use it; instead canceling their IFR flight plans to get into slc. My personal opinion is that those pilots usually feel uncomfortable with the procedure because few of their aircraft are GPS-equipped. One of the problems with this cargo 1 versus VFR situation is that you have very fast airplanes; such as metroliners; canceling IFR and then mixing it up with much slower caravans; and I'm not sure about the wisdom of that. But the bigger question is why aircraft on IFR flight plans; cleared for a visual approach; are not being given separation as required in far 5-5-11b3. Perhaps slc controllers should be reminded that IFR traffic is the priority and cargo operators should either all use the cargo 1; or none should. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the cargo 1 was created to ease the workload on controllers during peak arrival times for runway 32 but is not mandatory. Some of the aircraft; notably the faster ones; are not equipped with GPS. The tower needs to take more responsibility for separation; even when the flight crew claims they have traffic in sight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C208 PILOT REPORTS NMAC WITH METROLINER WHILE ON VISUAL APPROACH TO RWY 32 AT SLC.

Narrative: I PREVIOUSLY WAS CLRED FOR THE CARGO 1 VISUAL APCH BY SLC APCH. SWITCHED TO SLC TWR RIGHT AROUND DOGGY INTXN AND WAS FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED ROUTING. AS IS CUSTOMARY; RIGHT AROUND AMANA INTXN; TWR TOLD ME TO ADVISE WHEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN BASE FOR RWY 32; WHICH I DID. (VERY RARELY IS THE FULL PROC FOLLOWED.) TWR TOLD ME ABOUT TFC ON FINAL FOR RWY 35; AND I RESPONDED THAT I WAS LOOKING INTO THE SUN AND PROBABLY WOULDN'T GET VISUAL ON TFC. TWR TOLD ME TO START THE BASE; THEN CHANGED HIS MIND AND TOLD ME TO CONTINUE S FOR ANOTHER MI BEFORE TURNING BASE; WHICH I DID. SOMETIME AROUND HERE I WAS TOLD TO SWITCH TO TWR ON 118.30; AND WAS TOLD OF OTHER TFC. ONCE AGAIN I RESPONDED THAT I COULDN'T SEE TFC BECAUSE OF THE SUN. I WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 32 AND THEN TOLD THAT TFC WAS AT 1 O'CLOCK POS. I THEN HAD A BRIEF TERRIFYING GLIMPSE OF A METROLINER THAT SEEMED TO BE LESS THAN 50 FT OFF MY R; IN A SHARP BANK TURN TO AVOID ME. 'WHOA; YEAH; THERE HE IS!' WAS MY RESPONSE TO TWR. THERE WAS NO TIME FOR ME TO TAKE ANY EVASIVE MANEUVER BY THE TIME I SAW THE METROLINER. ANOTHER PLT; WHO WAS NEXT IN LINE ON THE CARGO 1; LATER TOLD ME THAT HE HEARD (WHILE STILL ON FREQ 120.2); THAT THE PLT OF THE METRO; HAD TOLD TWR THAT HE HAD ME IN SIGHT AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW MY ACFT. (PERHAPS THAT CAN BE CORROBORATED ON THE TAPES.) I LANDED AND THE TWR APOLOGIZED TO ME; BUT I WAS PRETTY SHAKEN UP AND I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER WHAT THE MAN SAID EXCEPT THAT THE METROLINER WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TURNED THE OTHER WAY. A VERY SIMILAR EVENT (THOUGH NOT NEARLY AS CLOSE) OCCURRED A FEW MONTHS AGO TO ME WITH A BEECH 99 IN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE AND I KNOW THAT OTHER PLTS HAVE HAD OTHER CLOSE CALLS. THE OTHER CARGO OPERATORS WHO HAVE SIGNED ON TO THE CARGO 1 ALMOST NEVER USE IT; INSTEAD CANCELING THEIR IFR FLT PLANS TO GET INTO SLC. MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THOSE PLTS USUALLY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PROC BECAUSE FEW OF THEIR ACFT ARE GPS-EQUIPPED. ONE OF THE PROBS WITH THIS CARGO 1 VERSUS VFR SITUATION IS THAT YOU HAVE VERY FAST AIRPLANES; SUCH AS METROLINERS; CANCELING IFR AND THEN MIXING IT UP WITH MUCH SLOWER CARAVANS; AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE WISDOM OF THAT. BUT THE BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY ACFT ON IFR FLT PLANS; CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH; ARE NOT BEING GIVEN SEPARATION AS REQUIRED IN FAR 5-5-11B3. PERHAPS SLC CTLRS SHOULD BE REMINDED THAT IFR TFC IS THE PRIORITY AND CARGO OPERATORS SHOULD EITHER ALL USE THE CARGO 1; OR NONE SHOULD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CARGO 1 WAS CREATED TO EASE THE WORKLOAD ON CONTROLLERS DURING PEAK ARRIVAL TIMES FOR RWY 32 BUT IS NOT MANDATORY. SOME OF THE ACFT; NOTABLY THE FASTER ONES; ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH GPS. THE TOWER NEEDS TO TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION; EVEN WHEN THE FLT CREW CLAIMS THEY HAVE TRAFFIC IN SIGHT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.