Narrative:

While descending below 10000' from a point southeast of orf, we were cleared for a visual approach to follow an light transport on a 10 mi final, straight in. It is impossible for me to exactly recollect events here, but as we passed abeam the T/D point, I observed traffic on a 1 mi final, which I believed to be the light transport. My copilot attempted to contact approach control 2 or 3 times unsuccessfully and switched to tower frequency. During the left turn to final I could not see to the right and it became necessary for the tower to pull the actual light transport off the final to avoid a possible collision. I never did observe the actual light transport and cannot say how far apart we were at the time. I do not believe we were ever informed of the traffic that I thought was the light transport. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter has been informed that enforcement action for a pilot deviation is in process. Reporter was asked to relate the exact wording used by the controller when he was cleared for visual approach to follow the light transport. Reporter could not remember and would not hazard a guess. Analyst feels that when controller cleared reporter for the visual approach, he should have first received an in sight report from reporter on the proper light transport before he gave the clearance for visual approach. Certainly, the controller cannot tell a pilot to follow another aircraft on a visual approach unless the pilot has reported sighting the other aircraft. Since enforcement action is in process, analyst feels that clearance must have been given properly and reporter apparently reported sighting the wrong light transport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG FOLLOWED WRONG ACFT ON VISUAL APCH FORCING ANOTHER ACR TO GO AROUND TO AVOID COLLISION.

Narrative: WHILE DSNDING BELOW 10000' FROM A POINT SE OF ORF, WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO FOLLOW AN LTT ON A 10 MI FINAL, STRAIGHT IN. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO EXACTLY RECOLLECT EVENTS HERE, BUT AS WE PASSED ABEAM THE T/D POINT, I OBSERVED TFC ON A 1 MI FINAL, WHICH I BELIEVED TO BE THE LTT. MY COPLT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT APCH CTL 2 OR 3 TIMES UNSUCCESSFULLY AND SWITCHED TO TWR FREQ. DURING THE LEFT TURN TO FINAL I COULD NOT SEE TO THE RIGHT AND IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR THE TWR TO PULL THE ACTUAL LTT OFF THE FINAL TO AVOID A POSSIBLE COLLISION. I NEVER DID OBSERVE THE ACTUAL LTT AND CANNOT SAY HOW FAR APART WE WERE AT THE TIME. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WERE EVER INFORMED OF THE TFC THAT I THOUGHT WAS THE LTT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR A PLTDEV IS IN PROCESS. RPTR WAS ASKED TO RELATE THE EXACT WORDING USED BY THE CTLR WHEN HE WAS CLRED FOR VISUAL APCH TO FOLLOW THE LTT. RPTR COULD NOT REMEMBER AND WOULD NOT HAZARD A GUESS. ANALYST FEELS THAT WHEN CTLR CLRED RPTR FOR THE VISUAL APCH, HE SHOULD HAVE FIRST RECEIVED AN IN SIGHT RPT FROM RPTR ON THE PROPER LTT BEFORE HE GAVE THE CLRNC FOR VISUAL APCH. CERTAINLY, THE CTLR CANNOT TELL A PLT TO FOLLOW ANOTHER ACFT ON A VISUAL APCH UNLESS THE PLT HAS RPTED SIGHTING THE OTHER ACFT. SINCE ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS IN PROCESS, ANALYST FEELS THAT CLRNC MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN PROPERLY AND RPTR APPARENTLY RPTED SIGHTING THE WRONG LTT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.